OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended. Lots: 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 2. Corona 3. Hālian 4. Tarhalindur Bids (all times UTC): 2019-06-07 17:01: Rance, 7 Coins 2019-06-08 00:59: omd, 10 Coins 2019-06-10 08:17: twg, 1 Coin 2019-06-11 13:43: V.J. Rada, 7 Coins 2019-06-11 13:44: Baron von Vaderham, 11 Coins Winners: Baron von Vaderham wins Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. omd wins Corona. Rance wins Hālian. V.J. Rada wins Tarhalindur.
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3731 Judged TRUE by Trigon
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3731 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 3731 === The ADoP did not EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19 May 2019. == Caller:D. Margaux Judge: Trigon Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by D. Margaux: 28 May 2019 13:49:13 Assigned to Trigon: 30 May 2019 18:57:40 Judged TRUE by Trigon:02 Jun 2019 08:56:41 == Caller's Arguments: Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid” unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19 May 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid options as required by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced. In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are the candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid options because Aris was also a candidate. In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally, that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options” were. In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear description of the valid options.” Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104. —— [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html -- Judge's Arguments: Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments, I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3730 Judged FALSE by D. Margaux
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3730 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 3730 === If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all players who are players that week have violated the rule, which provides that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week. == Caller:V.J. Rada Judge: D. Margaux Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by V.J. Rada: 06 Jun 2019 07:49:19 Assigned to D. Margaux: 12 Jun 2019 05:14:18 Judged FALSE by D. Margaux: 12 Jun 2019 14:19:47 == Caller's Arguments: I suspect that the text is not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual must be performed". I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test, American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text.. -- Judge's Arguments: Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means that “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.” During one particular Agoran week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed,” and a player pointed eir finger at all other active players for allegedly violating the rules by their failure to perform the Ritual. The question is whether the Cold Hand of Justice CAN (and MUST) be imposed on those players consistent with Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability). Under Rule 2531, a fine CANNOT Be imposed if (among other things): > (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction > which e (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] > > (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not > prohibited by the rules . . . . In my capacity as Referee, I offered a proto-decision on this issue.[1] At that time, my opinion was that the players' "inaction" caused a rule violation, and, as a result, the CHoJ could be imposed consistent with Rule 2531(2) and (3). I now believe that reasoning is wrong. Each players' "inaction" was a necessary (but not sufficient) cause of a violation of the rules. But the Rules do not prohibit *causing* a violation of the Rules. Indeed, there are a great many actions that are necessary causes for any particular rule violation. For example, G.'s action proposing the adoption of The Ritual rule was a necessary cause of the violation of that Rule. It would be contrary to the best interests of the game for causation of a rule violation to be considered itself a violation of the rules.[2] Indeed, the Rules expressly prohibit a player from causing a zombie to violate the rules (Masterminding), and that demonstrates that the Rules can differentiate between violating a rule and causing a violation of a rule. In sum, although in this instance the individual and collective "inaction" of the players did *cause* a rule violation, that inaction was not itself directly prohibited by the Rules. As a result, under Rule 2531(3), the CHoJ CAN'T and MUSTN'T be imposed, because doing so would "attempt[] to levy a fine for an . . . inaction which is not prohibited by the rules." Judged FALSE. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3729 Judged TRUE by D. Margaux
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3729
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 3729 ===
The Lost and Found department owns no more than 87 Coins.
==
Caller:Falsifian
Judge: D. Margaux
Judgement: TRUE
==
History:
Called by Falsifian: 24 May 2019 02:09:43
Assigned to D. Margaux: 02 Jun 2019 22:17:07
Judged TRUE by D. Margaux:02 Jun 2019 22:50:49
==
Caller's Arguments:
I think the CFJ is TRUE. I'm calling it because the 2019-02-18
Treasuror weekly report implies otherwise:
> Lost & Found + 30c. 2019-02-03 21:25 Deregistration of pokes
> pokes - 30c. 2019-02-03 21:25 Deregistration
I can't figure out why that "+ 30c." would have happened.
R2576 says that the Lost and Found Department owns things that "would
otherwise lack an owner", but I don't think there was any point at
which {the 30 Coins formerly owned by nichdel} existed and lacked an
owner. Even if we imagine an instant of time between when nichdel
ceased to be a Player and when eir 30 Coins were destroyed by the
first paragraph of R2576, nothing in the Rules says that at that
instant nichdel could not own those Coins, so the Coins did not lack
an owner. After the 30 Coins were destroyed, those 30 Coins do not
exist, so there likewise aren't 30 Coins that lack an owner at that
time either.
Caller's Evidence:
>From the Treasuror weekly report published 2019-05-09, which has
self-ratified by now:
> 87Lost and Found Department
>From R2576, "Ownership":
"If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
entities, then that asset ... is destroyed if it is owned by an entity
outside that class."
"If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
and Found Department."
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 01:39, Falsifian wrote:
> Having given notice, I hereby deregister nichdel. RIP.
--
Judge's Arguments:
TRUE. Under R2483, coins can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts.
Nichdel owned 30 coins. Nichdel was a player, and so could own coins,
but then became a non-player, and at that point could not. When e was
deregistered, the coins became owned by a non-player person, and where
therefore destroyed by R2576. Nichdel did not cease to exist, so the
coins never lacked an owner and the Lost & Found never became the owner
of those coins.
==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3728 Judged FALSE by Trigon
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3728 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 3728 === It would be LEGAL for me to create a proposal with text 'omd violated Rule 2450 by creating this proposal' and no optional attributes. == Caller:omd Judge: Trigon Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by omd:27 May 2019 01:30:17 Assigned to Trigon: 27 May 2019 20:14:18 Judged FALSE by Trigon: 02 Jun 2019 08:46:20 == Caller's Evidence: On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM omd wrote: > > I pledge not to create any proposals containing false statements for > the next week. -- Judge's Arguments: This CFJ has lots of layers, so in order to help myself and the readers understand the situation better, I will work from the inside out. Suppose that omd pledged not to state any falsehoods and then stated "omd violated Rule 2450 by saying this sentence." Whether this is a violation is not easily ascertainable because it is a paradox; in fact it is simply a slightly abstracted version of the most basic self-reference paradox "This sentence is false." So, moving out a layer, is it LEGAL to create a proposal that contains a paradoxical statement after vowing to not create any proposals containing false statements? No. FALSE. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3727 Judged TRUE by Falsifian
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3727
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 3727 ===
D. Margaux has more than 0 blots.
==
Caller:D. Margaux
Barred:Aris
Judge: Falsifian
Judgement: TRUE
==
History:
Called by D. Margaux: 27 May 2019 14:11:26
Assigned to G.: 27 May 2019 20:11:09
G. recuses emself:28 May 2019 05:58:43
Assigned to Falsifian:28 May 2019 21:53:44
Judged TRUE by Falsifian: 04 Jun 2019 13:25:46
==
Judge's Arguments:
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
"Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
repeat everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
In the following message, D. Margaux publishes a document and declares
intent to ratify it at a particular time. (I have reformatted it and
removed the quotations of messages it is in reply to.)
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true
> at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the
> subgames are defunct.
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken
> for the good of the game, but there were also other options available
> (proposal, or ratification without objection, which would have been
> unlikely to cause any problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule
> violation for the good of the game would be a forgiveable one blot
> fine. Under the circumstances though, some additional penalty is
> warranted for failing to adequately consider and discuss options that
> would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> D. Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> required words are {optimize, preferentially, consider,
> supersubtilize, adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux attempts to ratify without objection the document e earlier
announced intent to ratify.
2019-05-27 14:11
D. Margaux calls what is later named CFJ 3727.
2019-05-27 19:58
Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
2019-05-27 20:32
The reports D. Margaux published 7 days earlier self-ratify.
3. D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection failed.
===
D. Margaux attempted to ratify a document by ratification without
objection (Rule 2202). Performing actions "without objection" is
described by Rules 1728 and 2595, and requires that "A person (the
initiator) published an announcement of intent that ... specified the
action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3726 Judged TRUE by Falsifian
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3726
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 3726 ===
The most recent attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
by Aris was effective.
==
Caller:Aris
Barred:D. Margaux
Judge: Falsifian
Judgement: TRUE
==
History:
Called by Aris: 27 May 2019 19:57:51
Assigned to G.: 27 May 2019 20:11:09
G. recuses emself:28 May 2019 05:58:43
Assigned to Falsifian:28 May 2019 21:53:44
Judged TRUE by Falsifian: 04 Jun 2019 13:25:46
==
Judge's Arguments:
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
"Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
repeat everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
In the following message, D. Margaux publishes a document and declares
intent to ratify it at a particular time. (I have reformatted it and
removed the quotations of messages it is in reply to.)
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true
> at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the
> subgames are defunct.
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken
> for the good of the game, but there were also other options available
> (proposal, or ratification without objection, which would have been
> unlikely to cause any problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule
> violation for the good of the game would be a forgiveable one blot
> fine. Under the circumstances though, some additional penalty is
> warranted for failing to adequately consider and discuss options that
> would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> D. Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> required words are {optimize, preferentially, consider,
> supersubtilize, adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux attempts to ratify without objection the document e earlier
announced intent to ratify.
2019-05-27 14:11
D. Margaux calls what is later named CFJ 3727.
2019-05-27 19:58
Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
2019-05-27 20:32
The reports D. Margaux published 7 days earlier self-ratify.
3. D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection failed.
===
D. Margaux attempted to ratify a document by ratification without
objection (Rule 2202). Performing actions "without objection" is
described by Rules 1728 and 2595, and requires that "A person (the
initiator) published an announcement of intent that ...
OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report (rev. 1)
I publish the below revised Referee report of 12 June 2019. I CoE it because the attempt to impose the CHoJ on Aris by announcement might have failed; I resolve that CoE by citing to the CFJ I called earlier today. (Because this is a revised report as of 12 June 2019, it does not reflect the subsequent 3 blot fine levied against myself and 1 blot fine levied against Murphy; they will be reflected in next week’s report.) *** Referee’s Weekly Report Date of This Report: 2019-06-12 (rev. 1) Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03 BLOT HOLDINGS === This section self-ratifies. BlotsPlayer --- 7twg 3V.J. Rada 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 1L. 1Murphy 1Aris BlotsFugitive - 8Corona 4Kenyon RECENT CHANGES == This section does not self-ratify. 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot [revision: this was INEFFECTIVE] 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot [revision: this was INEFFECTIVE] 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot [revision: this was INEFFECTIVE] 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS = This section does not self-ratify. 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and Aris was fined 1 blot. 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, and Baron von Vaderham. RESULT: The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730 issued 12 June 2019.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
The case below is CFJ 3736, I assign it to omd. === CFJ 3736 === When the Referee MUST impose the Cold Hand of Justice, e CAN do so by announcement. == Caller:D. Margaux Judge: omd == History: Called by D. Margaux: 14 Jun 2019 15:27:27 Assigned to omd: (as of this message) == Caller's Arguments: omd wrote: > I initially read the CAN as attaching to the preceding SHALL > rather than the following one. When read as intended, it authorizes > the Referee to perform two actions. One is to "announce" the Finger > Pointing to be Shenanigans, which e doesn't need authorization to do. > The other is imposing the Cold Hand of Justice, which e does need > authorization for, but... even with this proposal, I don't think > anything states *how* e can impose the CHoJ (i.e. by announcement). I don’t think our recent CFJs have addressed whether the Referee CAN impose the CHoJ by announcement. This logic implies that e CANNOT, and I think I agree with it. What a mess. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3735 assigned to Falsifian
The below CFJ is 3735, I assign it to Falsifian. === CFJ 3735 === There was only one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. == Caller:Baron von Vaderham Judge: Falsifian == History: Called by Baron von Vaderham: 14 Jun 2019 06:29:31 Assigned to Falsifian:(as of this message) == Caller's Arguments: Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos. Mexican pesos are coins. Valid currency for this auctions is coins Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only legal tender was an AGORAN coin, I argue that there were TWO valid bids. Caller's Evidence: omd wrote: > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:49:21 PM > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM omd wrote: > > I hereby initiate an Auction. I am the Auctioneer and the Announcer; > > the currency is coins, and the minimum bid is one coin. > > > > This Auction contains a single lot, and that lot contains a single\ > > item, namely, > > > > ONE UNITED STATES DOLLAR. > > As the Announcer, I announce the end of this Auction. There was only > one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. E is the winner of > the only lot, and is now required to transfer payment. ==
