OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 10 Mar 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4015 Assigned to Janet Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:26:08 4012 Assigned to snail Due Sun 12 Mar 2023 21:57:38 4016 Assigned to nix Due Fri 17 Mar 2023 20:56:52 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4010 ais523 4011 snail 4013 G. 4014 Murphy 4015 Janet 4016 nix OPEN CASES --- 4016 Assigned to nix [Due Fri 17 Mar 2023 20:56:52] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4016 cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. 4015 Assigned to Janet [Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:26:08] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 4012 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 12 Mar 2023 21:57:38] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4012 The text of Rule 2486/1 (The Royal Parade), up to but not including "IN CELEBRATION", consists of multiple paragraphs. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4014 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 05 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4014 Rule 2643 contains the text 'A stone is immune if and only if'. 4013 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 23 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4013 Janet is party to at least one contract whose title begins with 'Riemann is'. 4011 Judged TRUE by snail [Wed 01 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4011 There are different types of devices described or defined in R2654 which do not refer to the device switch defined in R2655. 4010 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 27 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4010 The mentioned replacement in proposal 8898 was effectively applied. 4009 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sat 18 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4009 In this message, Apathy was declared. 4008 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Thu 16 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4008 It costs 2 hooves to get a jersey for a horse and add a horse to that horse's pull. 4007 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 15 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4007 The horses have been motivated this week. 4006 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 20 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4006 To meet the requirements of Rule 2201 upon acceping a Claim of Error regarding a document, it is enough for the publisher of that document to provide information that clearly and unambiguously determines the text of the revised document. 4005 Judged TRUE by Janet [Mon 20 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4005 Rule 2201 requires of a publisher of a document, upon acceping a Claim of Error, to publish the literal text of the revised document.
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4014 Judged FALSE by Murphy
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4014
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4014 ===
Rule 2643 contains the text 'A stone is immune if and only if'.
==
Caller:Janet
Judge: Murphy
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by Janet: 28 Feb 2023 01:47:43
Assigned to Murphy: 03 Mar 2023 22:25:36
Judged FALSE by Murphy: 05 Mar 2023 22:17:09
==
Caller's Arguments:
P8906 attempts to insert a "paragraph", but the text to insert has two
paragraphs. This may be sufficiently ambiguous as to render the change
ineffective under Rule 105/23.
I am not aware of any on-point precedent.
Caller's Evidence:
//
ID: 8906
Title: Stone Immunity Correction (Keeping Our Stones) Act
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
[Restore the definition of immunity, and add security to it.]
Amend Rule 2643 ("Collecting Stones") by prepending the following paragraph:
{
A stone is immune if and only if it is defined as such by the rules of
power not less than 2.
A stone is immune if it is owned by Agora. A stone is immune if it has
been granted immunity since the last collection notice. The granting of
immunity is secured.
}
[Explicitly prohibit the Soul Stone from transferring stones owned by
Agora. This isn't technically needed with the previous change, but it's
better to just make it explicit to prevent accidentally it breaking
again in the future.]
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by replacing "When wielded, the Soul
Stone is transferred to the owner of a different specified non-immune
stone, then that stone is transferred to the wielder." with "When
wielded, the Soul Stone is transferred to the owner of a different
specified non-immune stone not owned by Agora, then that stone is
transferred to the wielder.".
[Disallow theft of Protected stones, and add a tiebreak.]
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by replacing the list item beginning
"Anti-Equatorial" with the following
{
- Anti-Equatorial Stone (Monthly, 5): When wielded, the mossiest
non-immune stone is transferred to the wielder. If more than one such
stone is tied for mossiest, a specified one is transferred. When this
happens, the Anti-Equatorial Stone's mossiness is incremented by 1.
}
//
Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
generally:
1. enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to
one if the enacting instrument does not specify or if it
specifies a power less than 0.1, and the maximum power
permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a
title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID
number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting
instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
2. repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
maintain a record of it.
3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent
rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and the
next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule is
reenacted with the same text it had when it was most recently
repealed. If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the
rule, the rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
the repealed version. Unless specified otherwise by the
reenacting instrument, a reenacted rule has power equal to the
power it had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power
was not defined at the time of that rule's repeal). If the
reenacting instrument is incapable of setting the reenacted
rule's power to that value, then the reenactment is null and
void.
4. amend the text of a rule.
5. retitle (syn. amend the title of) a rule.
6. change the power of a rule.
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4016 Assigned to nix
The below CFJ is 4016. I assign it to nix. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4016 === CFJ 4016 === cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. == Caller:ais523 Judge: nix == History: Called by ais523: 05 Mar 2023 20:40:06 Assigned to nix: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On Sun, 2023-03-05 at 15:27 -0500, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote: > I vote FOR on all proposals. > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 6:36 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official < > agora-official@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [snip] > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum > > on it, and removing it from the proposal pool. [snip] > > ID Author(s) AITitle > > --- > > 8914~ nix 1.5 Can't Trust Em To Do Eir Own > > Work > > 8915~ 4st, G., Janet 1.0 Reenactment V2 > > 8916~ 4st, Janet 1.0 Ongoing obligation > > 8917* Janet 3.0 No > > 8918~ 4st, nix, G. Murphy 1.0 Ritual Paper Dance V2 > > 8919* nix, G., 4st, snail 3.0 Radiance v1.1 > > 8920* Janet 3.0 Adopted change re-application > > Caller's Arguments: cuddlybanana stated "I vote FOR on all proposals", and quoted a message that listed only a proper subset of the proposals that are currently open for voting (and as far as I can tell, is eligible to vote on all such proposals). Should that be interpreted as voting FOR on all the proposals that can be voted on, or only on the proposals that were listed in the quoted message? ==
