OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Tue 22 Aug 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [none] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st 4048 Murphy 4049 snail Yachay OPEN CASES --- [none] RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4049 Judged TRUE by snail [Sat 12 Aug 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4049 In the above-quoted message, G. noted an infraction.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 18 Aug 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [none] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st 4048 Murphy 4049 snail OPEN CASES --- [none] RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4049 Judged TRUE by snail [Sat 12 Aug 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4049 In the above-quoted message, G. noted an infraction. 4048 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4048 The ruleset violated 2683. 4047 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4047 Every player violated rule 2683. 4046 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4046 4st violated rule 2683. 4045 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4045 Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 11 Aug 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4049 Assigned to snail Due Fri 18 Aug 2023 22:53:41 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st 4048 Murphy 4049 snail OPEN CASES --- 4049 Assigned to snail [Due Fri 18 Aug 2023 22:53:41] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4049 In the above-quoted message, G. noted an infraction. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4048 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4048 The ruleset violated 2683. 4047 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4047 Every player violated rule 2683. 4046 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4046 4st violated rule 2683. 4045 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4045 Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4049 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4049. I assign it to snail. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4049 === CFJ 4049 === In the above-quoted message, G. noted an infraction. == Caller:ais523 Judge: snail == History: Called by ais523: 04 Aug 2023 23:39:05 Assigned to snail:[now] == Caller's Evidence: On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > You didn't out yourself, and it was noticed - I checked the ADoP > report a couple days ago but didn't sit down to do duties until > today. > > H. Referee, I note that 4st violated R2143 (infraction: tardiness) by > failing to publish a Herald's Weekly Report last week. This excerpt from rule 2478: {{{ A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction committed by any other player in the last 7 days, specifying the incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if it has one). }}} Caller's Arguments: G. got the name of the infraction wrong (its actual name is Weekly Tardiness). Rule 2478 seems to be ambiguous: it can be read as either *requiring* the name of the infraction to be specified if it has one, or as *offering the alternative* of naming the infraction if it has a name. With the former reading, G.'s action failed because it did not name the infraction correctly. With the latter reading, it may have succeeded (the rule number is correct), although there's still some potential doubt as to whether incorrectly naming the infraction might invalidate the action even though it would have succeeded with no name at all. (Note that this has no real impact on the current gamestate because an infraction can be investigated regardless of whether or not it has been noted; however, it affects the Referee's obligations and the contents of the Referee's Report, and thus has gamestate relevance in a more general way.) ==
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 04 Jul 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [none] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4037 snail 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st 4048 Murphy OPEN CASES --- [none] RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4048 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4048 The ruleset violated 2683. 4047 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4047 Every player violated rule 2683. 4046 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4046 4st violated rule 2683. 4045 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4045 Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Mon 24 Jul 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [none] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4037 snail 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st 4048 Murphy OPEN CASES --- [none] RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4048 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4048 The ruleset violated 2683. 4047 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4047 Every player violated rule 2683. 4046 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4046 4st violated rule 2683. 4045 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 16 Jul 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4045 Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683. 4044 Judged TRUE by 4st [Sat 24 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4044 On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 14 Jul 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4048 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37 4047 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37 4046 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37 4045 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4037 snail 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st 4048 Murphy OPEN CASES --- 4048 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4048 The ruleset violated 2683. 4047 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4047 Every player violated rule 2683. 4046 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4046 4st violated rule 2683. 4045 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 21 Jul 2023 18:01:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4045 Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4044 Judged TRUE by 4st [Sat 24 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4044 On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. 4043 Judged FALSE by G. [Tue 20 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4043 Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. 4042 Judged DISMISS by G. [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4042 At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on that proposal resolved to PRESENT. 4041 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4041 In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". 4040 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4040 In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 4038 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4038 The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. 4032 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Fri 16 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4032 There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice.
OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJs 4045-4048 Assigned to Murphy
Below are CFJs 4045, 4046, 4047, and 4048. I assign each one to Murphy. === CFJ 4045 === Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683. === CFJ 4046 === 4st violated rule 2683. === CFJ 4047 === Every player violated rule 2683. === CFJ 4048 === The ruleset violated 2683. == Caller:4st Judge: Murphy == History: Called by 4st:08 Jul 2023 02:27:21 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: Rule 2683 was violated, as the last time the boulder was pushed was June 23rd by 4st. Rule 2683/0 (Power=0.5) The Boulder The Absurdor is an office. The Boulder's Height is a singleton integer switch defaulting to 0, tracked by the Absurdor. Each player CAN, once a week, by announcement, push the boulder. When a player pushes the Boulder, its Height is increased by 1. Players are ENCOURAGED to do so. The Boulder MUST be pushed at least once a week. If at any point the height of the Boulder is 100 or more, it is set to 0. Caller's Arguments: Arguments JUAN: Juan, the Absurdor, has an implied responsibility to push the boulder, as e has the office responsible for tracking it, and has the power to push the boulder on any given week. Arguments 4ST: 4st, as the last and only pusher of the boulder, should have continued to push the boulder, as by volunteering the first time, has an implied responsibility to continue to do it. Arguments EVERYONE: As anyone CAN push the boulder, it is everyone's implied responsibility, and so, everyone violated rule 2683, because everyone has the responsibility to push the boulder. Arguments RULESET: Alternatively, since there is no one assigned to the responsibility specifically, the ruleset violated the rule, and thus, the infraction has no infracter. (I believe this is the precedent, but it doesn't hurt to check) -- Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: Arguments for JUAN, 4ST, EVERYONE: CFJ 3730 clearly suggests a judgement of FALSE. Arguments for RULESET: IRRELEVANT. No punishment can be imposed in any case. -- Gratuitous Arguments by ais523: I believe in this case it is the boulder that has violated the rules, by not being pushed. (As far as I can tell, this viewpoint is not inconsistent with CFJ 3730.) In CFJ 3141, the judge found that a sentence fragment "judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case" meant that the judge would have violated a rule by being assigned (as opposed to the person doing the assignment). This situation has comparable wording. Anyway, CFJ 3730 is a direct enough precedent that I think the first three CFJs could appropriately be judged IRRELEVANT, on the basis that they can be trivially determined from the outcome of another judicial case; there doesn't seem to be anything different this time compared to last time we tried this (something which IIRC was pointed out during the voting period). -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: (specific response to ais523's gratuitous arguments): Even if the judge agrees with the principles and logic of CFJ 3730, there's some rule text changes to consider. The judgement quotes a clause of Rule 2531/4 in effect at the time of that judgement: > Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if: > (reasons) That text has been replaced with this in R2531/16: > An infraction is automatically forgiven if: > (reasons) The "reasons" in R2531/4 mixed the concepts of "not a rules violation based on facts" and "technically a rules violation but excused from penalties" so it was the appropriate citation at the time; currently, "not a rules violation based on facts" is a platonic effect of Rule 2478 and R2531/16 is only relevant for forgiving an established rules violation. If the judge agrees with the overall logic of CFJ 3730, I think this is a minor rules citation issue, but it's probably different enough to reaffirm FALSE and cite R2478 as the new governing rule, or do a little due diligence on whether the new rules text functions as expected, rather than dismiss this as wholly irrelevant. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4044 Judged TRUE by 4st
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4044 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4044 === On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. == Caller:Janet Judge: 4st Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by Janet: 23 Jun 2023 16:28:37 Assigned to 4st: 23 Jun 2023 17:50:24 Judged TRUE by 4st: 23 Jun 2023 21:45:08 Motion to reconsider self-filed: 24 Jun 2023 00:16:28 Judged TRUE by 4st: 24 Jun 2023 00:16:28 == Caller's Arguments: This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect, nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of "having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must therefore always use the current definition in force. Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519, yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated action of any form. R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under either the current or former version of the rule. Caller's Evidence: // ID: 8988 Title: Rice rewrite Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: snail Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole: { The Ricemastor is an office. Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed. An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week, specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set). When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan. An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it. A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs, the following happen in order: * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the earliest created), if any, is harvested. * All rice plans are destroyed. Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2 rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner three times, this rule immediately repeals itself. } [ Changes: - Generally cleaned up wording - Handle rice at Lost and Found - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case where a person is in both the up and down sets) - Use "CAN" for enabling - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than "consent" - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures - Removed Fancy Caps ] // Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e has created by announcement. A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: - If there is only one Rice
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 23 Jun 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4044 Assigned to 4st Due Fri 30 Jun 2023 17:50:24 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4037 snail 4039 Murphy 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st OPEN CASES --- 4044 Assigned to 4st [Due Fri 30 Jun 2023 17:50:24] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4044 On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4043 Judged FALSE by G. [Tue 20 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4043 Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. 4042 Judged DISMISS by G. [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4042 At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on that proposal resolved to PRESENT. 4041 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4041 In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". 4040 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4040 In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 4039 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 04 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4039 I currently own the recursion stone. 4038 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4038 The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. 4037 Judged FALSE by snail [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4037 In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some community. 4036 Judged FALSE by snail [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4036 In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community. 4035 Judged FALSE by G. [Sun 04 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4035 Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir signature. 4034 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 05 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4034 G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that plan currently does not have G's signature. 4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix [Tue 30 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4033 There is a currently registered player named “blob”. 4032 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Fri 16 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4032 There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot [Wed 31 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030 Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4044 Assigned to 4st
The below CFJ is 4044. I assign it to 4st. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4044 === CFJ 4044 === On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. == Caller:Janet Judge: 4st == History: Called by Janet: 23 Jun 2023 16:28:37 Assigned to 4st: [now] == Caller's Arguments: This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect, nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of "having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must therefore always use the current definition in force. Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519, yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated action of any form. R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under either the current or former version of the rule. Caller's Evidence: // ID: 8988 Title: Rice rewrite Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Janet Co-authors: snail Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole: { The Ricemastor is an office. Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed. An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week, specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set). When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan. An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it. A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs, the following happen in order: * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the earliest created), if any, is harvested. * All rice plans are destroyed. Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2 rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner three times, this rule immediately repeals itself. } [ Changes: - Generally cleaned up wording - Handle rice at Lost and Found - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case where a person is in both the up and down sets) - Use "CAN" for enabling - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than "consent" - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures - Removed Fancy Caps ] // Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e has created by announcement. A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan is Harvested. - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one that was created earliest is Harvested. - In all other cases, nothing happens. And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4043 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4043 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4043 === Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. == Caller:4st Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by 4st:08 Jun 2023 22:08:10 Assigned to G.: 15 Jun 2023 18:09:42 Judged FALSE by G.: 20 Jun 2023 18:27:42 == Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), and 4st's consent didn't work or worked on both, so Yachay's plan was earliest and was tied for most signatures, and was thus harvested. Arguments PARADOX: G did not withdraw their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested. Yachay's plan would not have enough signatures if it were to be harvested, and it would have enough signatures if it wasn't going to be harvested. G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested, thus Yachay's plan would now have enough signatures, and juan's plan would be tied for first. Arguments AGAINST: G did not withdraw eir consent, and 4st's consent either didn't work or worked on both, so juan's plan was harvested. -- Judge G.'s Arguments: First, I've reviewed the Ricekeepor's report published here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017142.html and in particular the Rice Plans and signatures for the Harvest Week of 5-28 (see evidence below), and noticed no factual errors. CFJ 4032 found that rice plan consent generally functioned (unter the first version of the rule) as one might expect, and CFJ 4034 found that G. consented to Juan's Rice Plan but did not withdraw consent. So the final question is interpretation of this announcement by 4st: > I consent to all rice plans that will not be harvested. In general, indirect specification of entities or sets (like "I do this for all X that meet conditions Y") are subject to the same standards of communication as conditional actions - the specification of the set must be determinate at the time of communication, otherwise the communication simply fails to communicate and does nothing. The specification that 4st used was clear future tense - it didn't say "I consent to all plans that are currently not ahead" but "I consent to all plans that will in the future not be ahead". Future information such as this is indeterminate, so there was no reasonably clear consent to sign any plan at the time that message was sent. Now, it's *possible* that the Rice rule allowed a kind of continual evaluation of this statement, such that some plan was signed by 4st whenever that statement became determinate. For various reasons I don't think that forward continual evaluation works, but even if it *did* work, it fails here. Because there's no time when "will not be harvested" is actually resolvable. Up to the instant of the beginning-of-week deadline, the "will be harvested" is indeterminate, so consent is not reasonably clear. At the instant the deadline passes though, the rice plans platonically become "harvested" or "not harvested". So there is no actual instant in between where "will be harvested" becomes determinate, and 4sts set of "rice plans that will not be harvested" is never sufficiently determine to express consent for any plan. Therefore, Juan's rice plan was harvested, not Yachay's. I find FALSE. Judge G.'s Evidence RICE PLANS == Section 1: Harvest of Week 5-28 Created: 2023-05-28 by snail Up: {active players at time of creation} Down: {} Signatures: beokirby, snail, Janet, 4st Created: 2023-05-27 by G. Up: {G., Janet} Down: {4st} Signatures: G., Janet, 4st Created: 2023-05-26 by Janet Up: {} Down: {} Signatures: Janet, ais523, 4st Created: 2023-05-22 by juan Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan} Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay} Signatures: ais523, juan, (G, if G hasn't withdrawn eir signature), Janet, (4st, if this plan will not be harvested) Created: 2023-05-22 by Yachay Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay} Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy} Signatures: Yachay, beokirby, snail, (4st, if this plan will not be harvested) ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4042 Judged DISMISS by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4042 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4042 === At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on that proposal resolved to PRESENT. == Caller:ais523 Judge: G. Judgement: DISMISS == History: Called by ais523: 05 Jun 2023 00:19:23 Assigned to G.: 12 Jun 2023 22:58:01 Judged DISMISS by G.: 13 Jun 2023 18:12:54 == Caller's Arguments: Rule 2127 requires a conditional vote to be "determinate" in order to avoid evaluating to PRESENT. Rule 2518 requires a value to be reasonably determinable from information reasonably available to be determinate. Were my rice holdings actually determinate at this point? There has been mass confusion (and several CFJs) regarding how the rice rules actually work, with at least two CFJs unresolved at the time of the attempted resolution. The Ricemastor is inactive, and has missed reports. Some people have taken to attempting to sign Rice Plans using lots of different wordings in the same message, in the apparent hope that at least one of them will work. Further evidence is that the Assessor appeared to be in sufficient doubt about my Rice holdings that e immediately CoEd eir own resolution, referring the situation to CFJ – this implies that it was unreasonable for em to determine my Rice holding, otherwise e would probably have done so. (In general, it seems that although it's reasonable to tie a report to a CFJ outcome, it is unreasonable to do the same for a conditional vote.) -- Judge G.'s Arguments: As per R2518/1, a value is indeterminate if it "CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available". As per R2127/11, the determinacy of conditional votes is calculated as per conditions at the time the voting period ends. Importantly, the verb "determined" is an active verb that implies the determination is being conducted by persons (thinking beings) - and that determination is a physical/mental process that takes time. Taken literally, it is physically impossible for anybody to make the determination at (exactly) the end of the voting period, because given email delays, the full set of information isn't practically known until at least a few minutes after the deadline passes. To make sense of these rules, then, is to assume that the "information reasonably available" must be present (or en route with an early enough datestamp) at the end of the voting period, but that "determination" is an allowable interpretive process - e.g. by the Assessor - that can occur after the voting period has closed. To this end, the caller has erred in eir arguments, in noting that the CoE and CFJ calling are evidence of indeterminacy. Rather, they are part of the working determination process, not evidence of its failure. CFJs must be taken to be an acceptable part of the "reasonable determination" process occurring after the deadline, or they would fail to set up a "reasonable expectation" of controversy resolution as mandated by R217/12. So the Assessor calling a CFJ is simply exporting the formal responsibility for determination to a judge. While it is unfortunate that judicial delays may drag out the determination process, R217 confirms (essentially defines) that these CFJ delays are still within the timeline for "reasonably" determining a result or resolving a controversy about the interpretation of a result. CFJ 4032 has been called that questions the results of the first Rice Harvest. CFJ 4043 is questioning the result of the second Rice Harvest. If neither of those CFJs finds the situation indeterminate, then that would answer ("reasonably determine") the status of ais523's vote at the time the voting period ended. This current CFJ could be trivially revisited when those CFJs are judged, but until then, in deference to those CFJs, I DISMISS this case. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4041 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4041 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4041 === In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:04 Jun 2023 13:31:51 Motion to Extend filed: 11 Jun 2023 05:23:35 Judged FALSE by Janet:18 Jun 2023 23:36:19 == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? -- Judge Janet's Arguments: These cases are regarding the registration of a player who calls emself "blob". Because a former and well-known player went by the name "Blob", this has resulted in confusion about how officers should refer to either player in reports. The question before this court is how these names are to be interpreted in a short-term ephemeral report about current players (CFJ 4040) and a long-term historical document about an unbounded set of persons (CFJ 4041). Agora is a game that highly values its history. As such, many former players, even from long ago, are frequently referenced in reports. The older Blob is no exception. E is referenced every month in the Rulekeepor's Herald's, and Registrar's monthly reports. As such, most current and long-standing players are aware of the existence of Blob and, before the registration of the newer blob, would have recognized the name as a historical player. However, reports are not just for experienced players. The purpose of a report is primarily to inform all interested persons, including new players and onlookers who lack historical context, and secondarily to act as a historical record. Both of these purposes demand clarity and unambiguity, as prior cases on reports have found. Here I focus on the first purpose, as it is more tangible. Let us consider a hypothetical new player that has acquired the most recent version of each report. Such a player would most certainly conclude that the "blob" and "Blob" referenced in the two reports at issue are the same person. (As to the casing difference, even the most perceptive and inquisitive new player might fail to notice the difference, and those that do would likely ignore it.) Thus, a new player reading the reports at issue would be actively mislead into believing one version of the gamestate, while a veteran player would read the reports in a different, accurate way using their historical knowledge. This is confusion, not communication. The reports have failed in their primary duty to inform. Therefore, at least the referenced Herald's monthly report must be ambiguous in its reference to "Blob". However, this leaves the question of whether the referenced Herald's Weekly report is ambiguous in its reference to "blob". Both a veteran player and a new player will come to the conclusion that the "blob" referenced there is the same person listed as "blob" in the most recent Registrar's report. It has also been suggested that the fact that the Herald's weekly repo
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4040 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4040 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4040 === In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:04 Jun 2023 13:30:49 Motion to Extend filed: 11 Jun 2023 05:23:35 Judged FALSE by Janet:18 Jun 2023 23:36:19 == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? -- Judge Janet's Arguments: These cases are regarding the registration of a player who calls emself "blob". Because a former and well-known player went by the name "Blob", this has resulted in confusion about how officers should refer to either player in reports. The question before this court is how these names are to be interpreted in a short-term ephemeral report about current players (CFJ 4040) and a long-term historical document about an unbounded set of persons (CFJ 4041). Agora is a game that highly values its history. As such, many former players, even from long ago, are frequently referenced in reports. The older Blob is no exception. E is referenced every month in the Rulekeepor's Herald's, and Registrar's monthly reports. As such, most current and long-standing players are aware of the existence of Blob and, before the registration of the newer blob, would have recognized the name as a historical player. However, reports are not just for experienced players. The purpose of a report is primarily to inform all interested persons, including new players and onlookers who lack historical context, and secondarily to act as a historical record. Both of these purposes demand clarity and unambiguity, as prior cases on reports have found. Here I focus on the first purpose, as it is more tangible. Let us consider a hypothetical new player that has acquired the most recent version of each report. Such a player would most certainly conclude that the "blob" and "Blob" referenced in the two reports at issue are the same person. (As to the casing difference, even the most perceptive and inquisitive new player might fail to notice the difference, and those that do would likely ignore it.) Thus, a new player reading the reports at issue would be actively mislead into believing one version of the gamestate, while a veteran player would read the reports in a different, accurate way using their historical knowledge. This is confusion, not communication. The reports have failed in their primary duty to inform. Therefore, at least the referenced Herald's monthly report must be ambiguous in its reference to "Blob". However, this leaves the question of whether the referenced Herald's Weekly report is ambiguous in its reference to "blob". Both a veteran player and a new player will come to the conclusion that the "blob" referenced there is the same person listed as "blob" in the most recent Registrar's report. It has also been suggested that the fact that the Herald's weekly report is
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4036 Judged FALSE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4036 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4036 === In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community. == Caller:ais523 Judge: snail Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13 Assigned to snail:04 Jun 2023 13:27:43 Judged FALSE by snail:13 Jun 2023 03:07:17 == [Linked to CFJ 4037] Caller's Evidence: This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade. The relevant part of the tournament regulations is: {{{ If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is empty. Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one letter token and one number token that correspond to that location's coordinates. If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community, e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that starts with a different first letter than any existing community by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL do so by announcement. A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place a tile that would found a new community. If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a single community, that tile belongs to that community. If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to different communities, a merger happens. When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X (rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that community immediately before the merger divided by the total number of investments that exist for that community and times the number of investments for that community that player owns. The acquired communities and all investments in all acquired communities are destroyed. }}} Caller's Arguments: The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged community. However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or FALSE if G6 is part of Jade. I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that founding a new community by placing a tile not adjacent to any existing communities causes the placed tile to become part of the community founded that way. It seems plausible that such tiles would be part of no community, although that would completely break the tournament (both because there would be no way to score and because most of the moves that have happened so far would be illegal). The second CFJ is checking for the possibility that this has happened. -- Judge snail's Arguments: Unfortunately, I see nowhere stating in these regulations that a tile begins belonging to a community at any point except when placed next to a tile already in a community. When a player places their first tile, all that happens is they found a new community, get an investment in it, and become its founder. I don't see any text that says otherwise, so sadly, the tournament is broken. I judge CFJ 4037 FALSE, and recommend some sort of proposal to fix the tournament. I also judge CFJ 4036 FALSE, ("In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community.") as the tile is in fact empty, since ais523 already founded a community, which was no
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4038 Judged FALSE by Murphy
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4038 === The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. == Caller:Janet Judge: Murphy Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Janet: 30 May 2023 21:27:23 Assigned to nix: 04 Jun 2023 13:29:00 nix recused: 06 Jun 2023 23:36:56 Assigned to Murphy: 14 Jun 2023 18:02:20 Judged FALSE by Murphy: 18 Jun 2023 21:03:30 == Caller's Evidence: On 5/22/23 15:07, juan via agora-official wrote: > PLAYERS > > Active players: 14/21 > > a Player Registered Last change Contact > - -- -- --- --- > + 4st 2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail dot com > + Aspen2022-11-04 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at > gmail dot com > + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw dot edu > + Janet2019-06-02 2021-02-03 agora at randomcat dot org > + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail dot com > + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 " yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com > + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at yahoo.co > dot uk > + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail dot com > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com > + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com > + inalienableWright2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at mailfence > dot com > + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat dot br > + nix 2022-10-09 " agora at nullarch dot com > + snail2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail dot com > - Aced72022-10-19 2023-04-03 cadenomic at gmail dot com > - Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-04-03 gbs at canishe dot com > - Marb 2022-11-27 2023-04-03 marb at shabu dot town > - R. Lee 2023-01-31 2023-04-03 sarahestrange0 at gmail dot com > - Shy Owl 2022-10-07 2023-04-03 iamashyown at proton dot me > - omd 2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail dot com > - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: The Registrar's Report in question lists an email address for the person 'blob'. This email address does not match the email address associated with Blob in previous Registrar's Monthly Reports (around Jan 1 2023). Furthermore, the currently-registered blob, around the time of eir registration, had this (summarized) conversation in Discord: > snail 05/16/2023 8:00 PM > welcome! How did you find us? > > Murphy 05/16/2023 11:40 PM > Are you a mauve-colored blob, specifically? > > blob (@snail) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM > just found out about nomics somehow (through a "related articles" > wikipedia thing i believe) and thought that this looked pretty cool > > blob (@Murphy) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM > not specifically, no > > G. 05/17/2023 4:39 PM > welcome! Murphy's message on mauve is because we had someone nicknamed > Blob many years ago, and that was an in-joke with them. > > blob 05/17/2023 4:39 PM > ah, i see! i had to check my bio for a moment there, because muave is > my favorite color, and i thought it might be there xD I think that conversation establishes, to the preponderance of evidence, that the currently-registered blob is new to nomic, and unaware of various in-jokes concerning the original Blob. So I think this should be FALSE; though in particular, the disambiguation relies on the Registrar's Report including the email address as an annotation, so this CFJ doesn't really address who 'blob' refers to if the name is used in other reports without the additional annotation. -- Judge Murphy's Arguments: I accept the caller's arguments on all points and judge FALSE. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4037 Judged FALSE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4037 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4037 === In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some community. == Caller:ais523 Judge: snail Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13 Assigned to snail:04 Jun 2023 13:28:17 Judged FALSE by snail:13 Jun 2023 03:07:17 == [Linked to CFJ 4036] Caller's Evidence: This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade. The relevant part of the tournament regulations is: {{{ If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is empty. Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one letter token and one number token that correspond to that location's coordinates. If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community, e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that starts with a different first letter than any existing community by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL do so by announcement. A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place a tile that would found a new community. If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a single community, that tile belongs to that community. If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to different communities, a merger happens. When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X (rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that community immediately before the merger divided by the total number of investments that exist for that community and times the number of investments for that community that player owns. The acquired communities and all investments in all acquired communities are destroyed. }}} -- Judge snail's Arguments: Unfortunately, I see nowhere stating in these regulations that a tile begins belonging to a community at any point except when placed next to a tile already in a community. When a player places their first tile, all that happens is they found a new community, get an investment in it, and become its founder. I don't see any text that says otherwise, so sadly, the tournament is broken. I judge CFJ 4037 FALSE, and recommend some sort of proposal to fix the tournament. I also judge CFJ 4036 FALSE, ("In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community.") as the tile is in fact empty, since ais523 already founded a community, which was not destroyed. I will note for future reference that "If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a single community, that tile belongs to that community." can still apply in a merger, which, if CFJ 4037 was true, would mean the tournament works as intended. The tile would belong to each community involved, and then since the acquired communities are destroyed, only belong to the acquiring community. Caller's Arguments: The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged community. However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or FALSE if G6 is part of Jade. I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that founding a new community by placing a tile not adja
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4032 Judged TRUE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4032 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4032 === There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. == Caller:Yachay Judge: ais523 Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by Yachay: 25 May 2023 19:17:23 Assigned to 4st: 25 May 2023 23:36:45 Judged TRUE by 4st: 27 May 2023 17:40:02 Motion to reconsider group-filed: 28 May 2023 03:15:50 4st recused: 08 Jun 2023 22:59:57 Assigned to ais523: 13 Jun 2023 18:42:28 Judged TRUE by ais523:16 Jun 2023 23:56:48 == Caller's Arguments: [none provided so far] -- Gratuitous Arguments by G. This CFJ was called on 25-May-23, when only one Rice Harvest had occurred, and Rule 2682/0 was in effect. The report in question is here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017077.html No factual errors have been noted in this report, in terms of who sent messages attempting to either make Rice Plans or to sign rice plans either via direct consent or contract. The question is wholly interpretive, in that all signatures allegedly applied to the Rice Plans were governed by this clause of R2682/0: > A Rice > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is > consenting to it. This clause is written passively, without our general standards like "CAN sign by announcement" etc. And R2519/2 covers consent for "actions" not continuous states so it's unclear how that applies. Basically, if signing Rice Plans works as generally intended by the rule's author, then this CFJ is true, with the persons with more than 0 rice indicated in that report. Judge 4st initially judged this CFJ and eir original judgement is included below, but a Motion to Reconsider was filed for that judgement, and 4st was later recused. The players supporting the motion to reconsider generally gave the reason that Judge 4st's arguments called "having a signature on a plan" a kind of "continuous action" that players were "continually agreeing to" which didn't generally match Agoran conceptions of actions as instantaneous events (sorry if this is a very coarse summary of the objections). Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e has created by announcement. A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan is Harvested. - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one that was created earliest is Harvested. - In all other cases, nothing happens. And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends. Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice. If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times, this rule repeals itself. Judge 4st's Arguments: Evidence: Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the curren
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4043 Assigned to G.
[out of time to assign this case but want to ensure the judgements happen in the right order and build on each other...] I make the following pledge, with a time window of 14 days: {I SHALL NOT judge CFJ 4043 until the current judge of CFJ 4032 (ais523) has either judged that case or been recused from it}. The below CFJ is 4043. I assign it to G.. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4043 === CFJ 4043 === Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. == Caller:4st Judge: G. == History: Called by 4st:08 Jun 2023 22:08:10 Assigned to G.: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), and 4st's consent didn't work or worked on both, so Yachay's plan was earliest and was tied for most signatures, and was thus harvested. Arguments PARADOX: G did not withdraw their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested. Yachay's plan would not have enough signatures if it were to be harvested, and it would have enough signatures if it wasn't going to be harvested. G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested, thus Yachay's plan would now have enough signatures, and juan's plan would be tied for first. Arguments AGAINST: G did not withdraw eir consent, and 4st's consent either didn't work or worked on both, so juan's plan was harvested. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4038 Assigned to Murphy
I assign CFJ 4038 (below) to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038 === CFJ 4038 === The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. == Caller:Janet Judge: Murphy == History: Called by Janet: 30 May 2023 21:27:23 Assigned to nix: 04 Jun 2023 13:29:00 nix recused: 06 Jun 2023 23:36:56 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On 5/22/23 15:07, juan via agora-official wrote: > PLAYERS > > Active players: 14/21 > > a Player Registered Last change Contact > - -- -- --- --- > + 4st 2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail dot com > + Aspen2022-11-04 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at > gmail dot com > + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw dot edu > + Janet2019-06-02 2021-02-03 agora at randomcat dot org > + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail dot com > + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 " yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com > + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at yahoo.co > dot uk > + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail dot com > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com > + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com > + inalienableWright2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at mailfence > dot com > + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat dot br > + nix 2022-10-09 " agora at nullarch dot com > + snail2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail dot com > - Aced72022-10-19 2023-04-03 cadenomic at gmail dot com > - Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-04-03 gbs at canishe dot com > - Marb 2022-11-27 2023-04-03 marb at shabu dot town > - R. Lee 2023-01-31 2023-04-03 sarahestrange0 at gmail dot com > - Shy Owl 2022-10-07 2023-04-03 iamashyown at proton dot me > - omd 2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail dot com > - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: The Registrar's Report in question lists an email address for the person 'blob'. This email address does not match the email address associated with Blob in previous Registrar's Monthly Reports (around Jan 1 2023). Furthermore, the currently-registered blob, around the time of eir registration, had this (summarized) conversation in Discord: > snail 05/16/2023 8:00 PM > welcome! How did you find us? > > Murphy 05/16/2023 11:40 PM > Are you a mauve-colored blob, specifically? > > blob (@snail) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM > just found out about nomics somehow (through a "related articles" > wikipedia thing i believe) and thought that this looked pretty cool > > blob (@Murphy) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM > not specifically, no > > G. 05/17/2023 4:39 PM > welcome! Murphy's message on mauve is because we had someone nicknamed > Blob many years ago, and that was an in-joke with them. > > blob 05/17/2023 4:39 PM > ah, i see! i had to check my bio for a moment there, because muave is > my favorite color, and i thought it might be there xD I think that conversation establishes, to the preponderance of evidence, that the currently-registered blob is new to nomic, and unaware of various in-jokes concerning the original Blob. So I think this should be FALSE; though in particular, the disambiguation relies on the Registrar's Report including the email address as an annotation, so this CFJ doesn't really address who 'blob' refers to if the name is used in other reports without the additional annotation. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to ais523
I assign CFJ 4032 to ais523. [Full disclosure: I've added gratuitous arguments to cover the specific facts in this case, limited to the first week of Rice Harvests based on the timing of the CFJ call]. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4032 === CFJ 4032 === There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. == Caller:Yachay Judge: ais523 == History: Called by Yachay: 25 May 2023 19:17:23 Assigned to 4st: 25 May 2023 23:36:45 Judged TRUE by 4st: 27 May 2023 17:40:02 Motion to reconsider group-filed: 28 May 2023 03:15:50 4st recused: 08 Jun 2023 22:59:57 Assigned to ais523: [now] == Caller's Arguments: [none provided so far] -- Gratuitous Arguments by G. This CFJ was called on 25-May-23, when only one Rice Harvest had occurred, and Rule 2682/0 was in effect. The report in question is here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017077.html No factual errors have been noted in this report, in terms of who sent messages attempting to either make Rice Plans or to sign rice plans either via direct consent or contract. The question is wholly interpretive, in that all signatures allegedly applied to the Rice Plans were governed by this clause of R2682/0: > A Rice > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is > consenting to it. This clause is written passively, without our general standards like "CAN sign by announcement" etc. And R2519/2 covers consent for "actions" not continuous states so it's unclear how that applies. Basically, if signing Rice Plans works as generally intended by the rule's author, then this CFJ is true, with the persons with more than 0 rice indicated in that report. Judge 4st initially judged this CFJ and eir original judgement is included below, but a Motion to Reconsider was filed for that judgement, and 4st was later recused. The players supporting the motion to reconsider generally gave the reason that Judge 4st's arguments called "having a signature on a plan" a kind of "continuous action" that players were "continually agreeing to" which didn't generally match Agoran conceptions of actions as instantaneous events (sorry if this is a very coarse summary of the objections). Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e has created by announcement. A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan is Harvested. - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one that was created earliest is Harvested. - In all other cases, nothing happens. And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends. Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice. If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times, this rule repeals itself. Judge 4st's Arguments: Evidence: Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so ye
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Mon 12 Jun 2023 [Note, I am purposefully staggering some case assignments that are dependent on other outstanding cases - the "+ 1 day" for assignment deadline is due to succumbing]. DEADLINES (details below) --- 4036 Assigned to snail OVERDUE Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:43 4037 Assigned to snail OVERDUE Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:28:17 4038 nix recused, assignment due Due Tue 13 Jun 2023 23:36:56 + 1 day 4043 Called by 4st, assignment due Due Thu 15 Jun 2023 22:08:10 + 1 day 4032 4st recused, assignment due Due Thu 15 Jun 2023 22:59:57 + 1 day 4041 Motion to Extend filed (Janet) Due Sun 18 Jun 2023 13:30:49 4040 Motion to Extend filed (Janet) Due Sun 18 Jun 2023 13:30:49 4042 Assigned to G. Due Mon 19 Jun 2023 22:58:01 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4032 4st 4034 ais523 4037 snail 4039 Murphy 4041 Janet 4042 G. OPEN CASES --- 4043 Called by 4st [Due Thu 15 Jun 2023 22:08:10] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4043 Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. 4042 Assigned to G. [Due Mon 19 Jun 2023 22:58:01] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4042 At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on that proposal resolved to PRESENT. 4041 Motion to Extend filed [Due Sun 18 Jun 2023 05:23:35] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4041 In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". 4040 Motion to Extend filed [Due Sun 18 Jun 2023 05:23:35] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4040 In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 4038 nix Recused [Due Tue 13 Jun 2023 23:36:56] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4038 The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. 4037 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:28:17] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4037 In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some community. 4036 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:43] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4036 In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community. 4032 4st recused [Due Thu 15 Jun 2023 22:59:57] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4032 There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4039 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 04 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4039 I currently own the recursion stone. 4035 Judged FALSE by G. [Sun 04 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4035 Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir signature. 4034 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 05 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4034 G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that plan currently does not have G's signature. 4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix [Tue 30 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4033 There is a currently registered player named “blob”. 4031 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sun 21 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4031 This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain"). 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot [Wed 31 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030 Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. 4029 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 21 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4029 There was an infraction noted in this message. 4027 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 14 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4027 This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. 4026 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523 [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4026 In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. 4025 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sat 13 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4025 In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregula
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4042 Assigned to G.
The below CFJ is 4042. I assign it to G.. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4042 === CFJ 4042 === At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on that proposal resolved to PRESENT. == Caller:ais523 Judge:G. == History: Called by ais523: 05 Jun 2023 00:19:23 Assigned to G.: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Rule 2127 requires a conditional vote to be "determinate" in order to avoid evaluating to PRESENT. Rule 2518 requires a value to be reasonably determinable from information reasonably available to be determinate. Were my rice holdings actually determinate at this point? There has been mass confusion (and several CFJs) regarding how the rice rules actually work, with at least two CFJs unresolved at the time of the attempted resolution. The Ricemastor is inactive, and has missed reports. Some people have taken to attempting to sign Rice Plans using lots of different wordings in the same message, in the apparent hope that at least one of them will work. Further evidence is that the Assessor appeared to be in sufficient doubt about my Rice holdings that e immediately CoEd eir own resolution, referring the situation to CFJ – this implies that it was unreasonable for em to determine my Rice holding, otherwise e would probably have done so. (In general, it seems that although it's reasonable to tie a report to a CFJ outcome, it is unreasonable to do the same for a conditional vote.) ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4039 Judged FALSE by Murphy
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4039 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4039 === I currently own the recursion stone. == Caller:snail Judge: Murphy Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by snail: 01 Jun 2023 21:16:54 Assigned to Murphy: 04 Jun 2023 13:29:32 Judged FALSE by Murphy: 04 Jun 2023 20:26:20 == Caller's Evidence: snail wrote: > I wield the radiance stone. (This increases my radiance by 3.) > I reach for the Minty stone. > I wield the recursion stone as the soul stone, specifying the > anti-equatorial stone. > I wield the anti-equatorial stone. (This transfers the power stone to me.) - Recursion Stone (Monthly, 4): The Recursion Stone can be wielded once per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice. - Soul Stone (weekly, 3): 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. Caller's Arguments: Using the recursion stone as the soul stone seems to transfer the soul stone to the owner of the anti-equatorial stone, as that's what the rule says (the power of the soul stone, which is being copied, transfers the soul stone, not the recursion stone or perhaps "this stone"). But does it actually do that? If so, I own the recursion stone and ais523 now owns the soul stone. If not, my recursion stone was transferred to ais523. A real thinker, a conundrum, if you will. Will the practical reading prevail? Or the technical, textual one? -- Judge Murphy's Arguments: Beokirby acquired the Recursion Stone on or about 2023-05-29, and still had it when the attempted actions listed in Caller's Evidence were attempted. I judge FALSE. To answer the intended question, though: The Recursion Stone's power is worded broadly; "as if it had the power", as opposed to "as if it had a copy of the power's text". Accordingly, I interpret that it also substitutes itself into any clause in which the power of the target stone references the target stone itself. This would result in a judgement of FALSE even if Beokirby had not acted. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4035 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4035 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4035 === Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir signature. == Caller:Juan Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Juan: 28 May 2023 00:32:29 Assigned to G.: 04 Jun 2023 13:27:00 Judged FALSE by G.: 04 Jun 2023 15:14:47 == Caller's Evidence: >On 5/27/23 20:19, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business wrote: >> I create, consent, and join the following contract, named “Juan's feeble >> attempt at paradox”: >> >> { >> Only juan is a party of this contract. >> >> Any party to this contract consents to all existing Rice Plans that do >> not have eir signature. >> } -- Judge G.'s Arguments: In general, contracts only have the exact abilities the rules say they have, no more. In particular, statements/interpretations of contracts are generally subject to standards of textual clarity similar to by-announcement actions. The standards (precedents over time) generally hold that self-contradictory announcements or contract clauses are simply failures to communicate, not paradox-makers. Rule 2682 makes "consenting to a rice plan" essentially synonymous with having one's signature on it, so the contract in the Caller's evidence reduces to a classic self-contradictory Russell's Paradox. Due to this self-contradiction, the contract fails to "explicitly and unambiguously" communicate any kind of consent as required by R2519(2). Further, while some "technically broken" contracts may still provide some limited context for consent as per R2519(4), creating "paradoxical consent" has been found to fail to meet R2519(4) standards as per CFJ 4013: > Taking the position that silence != consent also means assuming that > uncertainty != consent. In many cases in Agora, we have legislated > away the law of excluded middle - just because something isn't true > doesn't mean it's false, it may be logically indeterminate. However, > in dealing with consent, we should generally avoid such logic and > maintain that a lack of clear consent means NO consent exists, at > least to the extent that the rules allow. (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4013) Therefore, the contract in the Caller's evidence does not meet Agoran standards for determining consent to anything. FALSE. Side-note: I believe the logic of this judgement holds whether or not "consenting to rice plans" is judged (in currently-parallel CFJs) as an instant action, a continual action, or if R2519 is used as definitional guidance for consenting to a non-action. So this judgement should hold regardless of the outcome of those CFJs. Judge's Evidence: Rule 2519/2 (Power=3) Consent A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if, at the time the action took place: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement; 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously indicates eir consent; 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place. Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e has created by announcement. A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan is Harvested. - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one that was created earliest is Harvested. - In all other cases, nothing happens. And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends. Rice Plans consist of two lists of pl
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4034 Judged FALSE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4034 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4034 === G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that plan currently does not have G's signature. == Caller:G. Judge: ais523 Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by G.: 27 May 2023 17:16:28 Assigned to ais523: 04 Jun 2023 13:25:34 Judged FALSE by ais523: 05 Jun 2023 00:04:21 == Caller's Evidence: G wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:21=E2=80=AFPM juan wrote: >> >> I create the following Rice Plan: >> >> { >> Up Rice: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan} >> Down Rice: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay} >> } >> >> and consent to having my signature put in it. > > I consent to the above Rice Plan (to having my signature on it). > > If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I withdraw my consent from the > above Rice Plan. Caller's Arguments: Granting consent in most cases is described in Rule 2519/2, and CFJ 4013 recently found that, even without that rule, the general concept of "giving consent" requires positive evidence of consent, and neither silence nor ambiguity should be inferred as granting consent. However, *withdrawing* consent is another matter. In particular, you CANNOT withdraw consent from a contract without the unanimous agreement of parties or unless the contract text itself explicitly allows it. Otherwise, the contract wouldn't be a "binding" agreement, by the basic definition of "binding". Rule 2682/0 contains this clause: > Rice Plans can have > Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is > consenting to it. This *anticipates* that consent could be withdrawn from Rice Plans, but provides no mechanism for doing so. My belief is that this is regulated (the Ricemastor tracks signatures) so it is currently IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw consent. However, in the event that the above rules text enables the "natural" withdrawal of consent by various means, there is no standard of communication to be inferred, no "good of the game" reason to allow for consent withdrawal, and no "good of the game" reason to decide that the burden of proof is for or against withdrawal succeeding. So it could quite easily lead to PARADOXICAL if my conditional above is indeterminate. Another possibility is that by making a "consent withdrawal" as a paradoxical statement, is is no longer clear from context as per R2519 that consent exists, which effectively removes it (therefore a withdrawal attempt that is paradoxical still results in withdrawal). -- Judge ais523's Arguments: This CFJ hinges around what "consent" means, from the point of view of rule 2682. There are two main possible meanings that we could use. One is the rule 2519 definition of consent, which defines what it means to consent to an action. The other is that it reflects some notion of "natural consent", which is a state of mind that players can change their mind about at any time (in this viewpoint, rule 2519 does not apply because the consent is to something other than an action). First, let's see what would happen under the rule 2519 definition. In this case, the sort of revocation in question would be effective only if G. had "publicly withdrawn eir statement", which rule 478 defines as the withdrawal of eir statement "within a public message". Rule 478 requires actions by announcement to be clear and unambiguous, but this is not an action by announcement, and thus a rule 2519 withdrawal of consent can be done by any means that can be reasonably implied from the body of the message. In order to do that, the message would have to indicate that G. desired to withdraw eir consent: it could either do that by explicitly stating it (in the style of an action by announcement), or else by clarifyng G.'s mental state. But the message fails to accomplish the former (it has a conditional that cannot reasonably be evaluated and thus fails to state that the action is being performed), and in the case of the latter, the rule 2519 definition basically collapses down to the "natural consent" definition. (Note: rule 2519 should probably be fixed to explicitly make withdrawal of consent an action by announcement.) So what matters here is either a) whether G.'s actual state of mind is that e consents to the rice plan in question, or b) whether G.'s mess
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Sun 04 Jun 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4032 4st Motion to reconsiderOVERDUE Sun 04 Jun 2023 03:15:50 4034 Assigned to ais523 Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:25:34 4035 Assigned to G. Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:00 4036 Assigned to snail Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:43 4037 Assigned to snail Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:28:17 4038 Assigned to nix Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:00 4039 Assigned to Murphy Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:32 4040 Assigned to Janet Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:30:49 4041 Assigned to Janet Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:31:51 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4032 4st 4034 ais523 4035 G. 4037 snail 4038 nix 4039 Murphy 4041 Janet [4030 Yachay - inactive] OPEN CASES --- 4041 Assigned to Janet [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:31:51] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4041 In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". 4040 Assigned to Janet [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:30:49] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4040 In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 4039 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:32] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4039 I currently own the recursion stone. 4038 Assigned to nix [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:00] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4038 The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. 4037 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:28:17] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4037 In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some community. 4036 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:43] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4036 In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community. 4035 Assigned to G. [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:00] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4035 Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir signature. 4034 Assigned to ais523 [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:25:34] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4034 G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that plan currently does not have G's signature. 4032 Motion to reconsider group-filed [Due Sun 04 Jun 2023 03:15:50] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4032 There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix [Tue 30 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4033 There is a currently registered player named “blob”. 4031 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sun 21 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4031 This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain"). 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot [Wed 31 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030 Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. 4029 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 21 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4029 There was an infraction noted in this message. 4028 Judged FALSE by G. [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4028 There was an infraction noted in this message. 4027 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 14 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4027 This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. 4026 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523 [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4026 In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. 4025 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sat 13 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4025 In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action. 4024 Judged TRUE by snail [Thu 18 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4024 This means the same thing as "each and every". 4023 Judged TRUE by 4st [Fri 19 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4023 Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. 4022 Judged TRUE by nix
OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4041 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4041. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4041 === CFJ 4041 === In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:[now] == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4040 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4040. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4040 === CFJ 4040 === In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:[now] == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4039 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4039. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4039 === CFJ 4039 === I currently own the recursion stone. == Caller:snail Judge: Murphy == History: Called by snail: 01 Jun 2023 21:16:54 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: snail wrote: > I wield the radiance stone. (This increases my radiance by 3.) > I reach for the Minty stone. > I wield the recursion stone as the soul stone, specifying the > anti-equatorial stone. > I wield the anti-equatorial stone. (This transfers the power stone to me.) - Recursion Stone (Monthly, 4): The Recursion Stone can be wielded once per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice. - Soul Stone (weekly, 3): 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. Caller's Arguments: Using the recursion stone as the soul stone seems to transfer the soul stone to the owner of the anti-equatorial stone, as that's what the rule says (the power of the soul stone, which is being copied, transfers the soul stone, not the recursion stone or perhaps "this stone"). But does it actually do that? If so, I own the recursion stone and ais523 now owns the soul stone. If not, my recursion stone was transferred to ais523. A real thinker, a conundrum, if you will. Will the practical reading prevail? Or the technical, textual one? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4038 Assigned to nix
The below CFJ is 4038. I assign it to nix. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038 === CFJ 4038 === The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. == Caller:Janet Judge: nix == History: Called by Janet: 30 May 2023 21:27:23 Assigned to nix: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On 5/22/23 15:07, juan via agora-official wrote: > PLAYERS > > Active players: 14/21 > > a Player Registered Last change Contact > - -- -- --- --- > + 4st 2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail dot com > + Aspen2022-11-04 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at > gmail dot com > + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw dot edu > + Janet2019-06-02 2021-02-03 agora at randomcat dot org > + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail dot com > + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 " yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com > + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at yahoo.co > dot uk > + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail dot com > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com > + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com > + inalienableWright2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at mailfence > dot com > + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat dot br > + nix 2022-10-09 " agora at nullarch dot com > + snail2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail dot com > - Aced72022-10-19 2023-04-03 cadenomic at gmail dot com > - Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-04-03 gbs at canishe dot com > - Marb 2022-11-27 2023-04-03 marb at shabu dot town > - R. Lee 2023-01-31 2023-04-03 sarahestrange0 at gmail dot com > - Shy Owl 2022-10-07 2023-04-03 iamashyown at proton dot me > - omd 2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail dot com > - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4037 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4037. I assign it to snail. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4037 === CFJ 4037 === In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some community. == Caller:ais523 Judge: snail == History: Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13 Assigned to snail:[now] == [Linked to CFJ 4036] Caller's Evidence: This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade. The relevant part of the tournament regulations is: {{{ If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is empty. Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one letter token and one number token that correspond to that location's coordinates. If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community, e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that starts with a different first letter than any existing community by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL do so by announcement. A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place a tile that would found a new community. If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a single community, that tile belongs to that community. If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to different communities, a merger happens. When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X (rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that community immediately before the merger divided by the total number of investments that exist for that community and times the number of investments for that community that player owns. The acquired communities and all investments in all acquired communities are destroyed. }}} Caller's Arguments: The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged community. However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or FALSE if G6 is part of Jade. I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that founding a new community by placing a tile not adjacent to any existing communities causes the placed tile to become part of the community founded that way. It seems plausible that such tiles would be part of no community, although that would completely break the tournament (both because there would be no way to score and because most of the moves that have happened so far would be illegal). The second CFJ is checking for the possibility that this has happened. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4036 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4036. I assign it to snail. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4036 === CFJ 4036 === In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community. == Caller:ais523 Judge: snail == History: Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13 Assigned to snail:[now] == [Linked to CFJ 4037] Caller's Evidence: This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade. The relevant part of the tournament regulations is: {{{ If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is empty. Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one letter token and one number token that correspond to that location's coordinates. If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community, e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that starts with a different first letter than any existing community by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor CAN and SHALL do so by announcement. A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place a tile that would found a new community. If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a single community, that tile belongs to that community. If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to different communities, a merger happens. When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X (rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that community immediately before the merger divided by the total number of investments that exist for that community and times the number of investments for that community that player owns. The acquired communities and all investments in all acquired communities are destroyed. }}} Caller's Arguments: The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged community. However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or FALSE if G6 is part of Jade. I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that founding a new community by placing a tile not adjacent to any existing communities causes the placed tile to become part of the community founded that way. It seems plausible that such tiles would be part of no community, although that would completely break the tournament (both because there would be no way to score and because most of the moves that have happened so far would be illegal). The second CFJ is checking for the possibility that this has happened. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4035 Assigned to G.
The below CFJ is 4035. I assign it to G.. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4035 === CFJ 4035 === Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir signature. == Caller:Juan Judge: G. == History: Called by Juan: 28 May 2023 00:32:29 Assigned to G.: [now] == Caller's Evidence: >On 5/27/23 20:19, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business wrote: >> I create, consent, and join the following contract, named “Juan's feeble >> attempt at paradox”: >> >> { >> Only juan is a party of this contract. >> >> Any party to this contract consents to all existing Rice Plans that do >> not have eir signature. >> } ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4034. I assign it to ais523. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4034 === CFJ 4034 === G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that plan currently does not have G's signature. == Caller:G. Judge: ais523 == History: Called by G.: 27 May 2023 17:16:28 Assigned to ais523: [now] == Caller's Evidence: G wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:21=E2=80=AFPM juan wrote: >> >> I create the following Rice Plan: >> >> { >> Up Rice: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan} >> Down Rice: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay} >> } >> >> and consent to having my signature put in it. > > I consent to the above Rice Plan (to having my signature on it). > > If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I withdraw my consent from the > above Rice Plan. Caller's Arguments: Granting consent in most cases is described in Rule 2519/2, and CFJ 4013 recently found that, even without that rule, the general concept of "giving consent" requires positive evidence of consent, and neither silence nor ambiguity should be inferred as granting consent. However, *withdrawing* consent is another matter. In particular, you CANNOT withdraw consent from a contract without the unanimous agreement of parties or unless the contract text itself explicitly allows it. Otherwise, the contract wouldn't be a "binding" agreement, by the basic definition of "binding". Rule 2682/0 contains this clause: > Rice Plans can have > Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is > consenting to it. This *anticipates* that consent could be withdrawn from Rice Plans, but provides no mechanism for doing so. My belief is that this is regulated (the Ricemastor tracks signatures) so it is currently IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw consent. However, in the event that the above rules text enables the "natural" withdrawal of consent by various means, there is no standard of communication to be inferred, no "good of the game" reason to allow for consent withdrawal, and no "good of the game" reason to decide that the burden of proof is for or against withdrawal succeeding. So it could quite easily lead to PARADOXICAL if my conditional above is indeterminate. Another possibility is that by making a "consent withdrawal" as a paradoxical statement, is is no longer clear from context as per R2519 that consent exists, which effectively removes it (therefore a withdrawal attempt that is paradoxical still results in withdrawal). ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4033 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4033 === There is a currently registered player named “blob”. == Caller:Juan Judge: nix Judgement: IRRELEVANT == History: Called by Juan: 25 May 2023 20:42:33 Assigned to nix: 25 May 2023 23:38:04 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix: 30 May 2023 19:44:29 == Caller's Evidence: This thread (linking to end): https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55883.html Caller's Arguments: Apparently, it is the first time in agoran history that a player game emself the same name as a previous player *long enough* for it to become an issue. Now there is controversy: there is long-standing tradition both in letting people choose eir own names and asking for people to choose unique names. Names are not defined by the rules. There is, however, an old CFJ stablishing that names are identifiers that uniquely specify players across all contexts in Agora. The question is: is this enforceable? Besides not defining them, the rules don't even *mention* names; instead opting to make officers “uniquely identify” players. So, in my view the crux of the matter for this CFJ is to determine whether refering to a current player by a name that a previous player had, in a context where only registered players are mentioned, *is* actually uniquely identifying the current player. -- Judge nix's Arguments: I judge this CFJ IRRELEVANT. The rules do not mention and do not care about person's names. Reports and actions need to clearly differentiate who they are referring to, but nothing says that needs to be done by names. It's not regulated, nor is it tracked. The closest we get to tracking anything like names is the Registrar's report, which must include "information sufficient to identify and contact each player." This could be many things, such as email address, assigned identifiers, registration date, or many other solutions. Some are clearly more useful than others, but all seem allowable. It also seems to be that nobody is debating whether this person is called blob. I could be wrong here, but the debate appears to be about whether that is ambiguous. Meaningful questions may arise in specific usages of this name as an identifier. It may very well be ambiguous with the previous player also known as blob, especially in instances of reports that mention both (Herald, Registrar, and Rulekeepor monthlies perhaps) or in actions that can refer to any persons, not just current players (titles, ribbons). These deserve their own CFJs when they occur, with arguments about the specific instance. There's also a very valid concern about whether this muddies the clarity of historical documents, or historical research. I think this concern needs to be balanced with the long-standing tradition that the caller mentions of allowing players to choose their own name, and of referring to players primarily by chosen name. This appears to be a conflict between individual rights Agora gives, and the best interest of Agora long-term. Both seem to be equally strong claims about the best interests of Agora to me. Ideally this would be resolved by agreement on conventions, either informally or legislatively. In any case, I believe this CFJ is both the wrong question and the wrong approach to addressing this conflict. I beseech interested parties to seek common ground and to ask CFJs on specific instances of potential ambiguity/conflict that more directly interact with the rules. When it becomes clear how often this is actually an issue (or not) for play, it may become easier to agree on standards. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay, affirmed by Moot
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4030 === Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. == Caller:nix Judge: Yachay == History: Called by nix:17 May 2023 23:14:29 Assigned to Yachay: 21 May 2023 14:06:53 Judged TRUE by Yachay:21 May 2023 17:35:04 Entered into Moot:22 May 2023 19:28:28 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot: 31 May 2023 19:12:46 == Caller's Evidence: On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > Previous versions of rule 2680 said "CAN once" (e.g. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016950.html > - mail-archive.com isn't archiving old rulesets so I had to link the > private archive). > > However, proposal 8943 > (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13159.html) > changed it to a version without the "once". We generally say "CAN once" > if an action is only intended to be possible once, and the "once", once > present, is now repealed. This means that it should be possible to > anoint multiple ritual numbers using the same ritual act. Caller's Arguments: To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in other games. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the win). For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X happens, a player CAN Y" language. -- Judge Yachay's Arguments: Guidance in Rule 217 states: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and the new ritual number. The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint once, or that you can anoint multiple times. Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to permit it as evidence for this case: I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I woul
OFF: [Arbitor] Moot on CFJ 4030 resolved as AFFIRM
I hereby resolve the Agoran Decision (Moot) to determine public confidence in CFJ 4030's judgement of TRUE, delivered by Yachay on 21 May 2023, as follows: AFFIRM: ais523, Yachay, 4st, snail REMAND: (none) REMIT: Juan, Janet[0], nix[1] PRESENT: Murphy Voting strength for everybody above on this is 3. Voting strength tally is affirm 12, remand 0, remit 9 Quorum of 5 was met. Outcome: AFFIRM [0] Janet: REMIT if there are more unconditional REMIT ballots than unconditional REMAND ballots, otherwise REMAND. [1] nix: REMAND if at least two other people vote REMAND, otherwise REMIT. [Personal note: I didn't vote because it was looking close and I didn't want to 'vote twice' by both voting and breaking the tie, but the affirm side had convinced me in the end]. -G.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4033 Assigned to nix
The below CFJ is 4033. I assign it to nix. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4033 === CFJ 4033 === There is a currently registered player named “blob”. == Caller:Juan Judge: nix == History: Called by Juan: 25 May 2023 20:42:33 Assigned to nix: [now] == Caller's Evidence: This thread (linking to end): https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55883.html Caller's Arguments: Apparently, it is the first time in agoran history that a player game emself the same name as a previous player *long enough* for it to become an issue. Now there is controversy: there is long-standing tradition both in letting people choose eir own names and asking for people to choose unique names. Names are not defined by the rules. There is, however, an old CFJ stablishing that names are identifiers that uniquely specify players across all contexts in Agora. The question is: is this enforceable? Besides not defining them, the rules don't even *mention* names; instead opting to make officers “uniquely identify” players. So, in my view the crux of the matter for this CFJ is to determine whether refering to a current player by a name that a previous player had, in a context where only registered players are mentioned, *is* actually uniquely identifying the current player. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
[Apologies for not waiting for more input from the Caller, but if I don't assign this now it may be nearly a week before I can. Hopefully Yachay can still provide something timely, or Judge 4st has some knowledge of the controversy.] The below CFJ is 4032. I assign it to 4st. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4032 === CFJ 4032 === There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. == Caller:Yachay Judge: 4st == History: Called by Yachay: 25 May 2023 19:17:23 Assigned to 4st: [now] == Caller's Arguments: [none provided so far] ==
OFF: [Arbitor] MOOT on CFJ 4030 - Please Vote
I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision (a Moot) to determine public confidence in CFJ 4030's current judgement of TRUE, delivered by Yachay on 21 May 2023. For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor, quorum is 5, voting method is first-past-the-post. Valid options: - AFFIRM (meaning you think Yachay's judgement of TRUE should stand). - REMAND (meaning you think Yachay should have a chance to re-judge this case). - REMIT (meaning you think a different judge should be assigned to re-judge it). - PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes. For judgements of Remand and Remit, giving or referring to a reason is greatly beneficial to future judges. JUDGEMENT BELOW, ALSO VIEWABLE AT: status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 === CFJ 4030 === Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. == Caller:nix Judge: Yachay == History: Called by nix:17 May 2023 23:14:29 Assigned to Yachay: 21 May 2023 14:06:53 Judged TRUE by Yachay:21 May 2023 17:35:04 Entered into Moot:22 May 2023 19:28:28 == Caller's Evidence: On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > Previous versions of rule 2680 said "CAN once" (e.g. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016950.html > - mail-archive.com isn't archiving old rulesets so I had to link the > private archive). > > However, proposal 8943 > (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13159.html) > changed it to a version without the "once". We generally say "CAN once" > if an action is only intended to be possible once, and the "once", once > present, is now repealed. This means that it should be possible to > anoint multiple ritual numbers using the same ritual act. Caller's Arguments: To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in other games. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the win). For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X happens, a player CAN Y" language. -- Judge Yachay's Arguments: Guidance in Rule 217 states: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and the new ritual number. The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint once, or that you can anoint multiple times. Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to permit it as evidence for this case:
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Wed 24 May 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [None] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4022 nix 4023 4st 4024 snail 4025 Janet 4028 G. 4029 Murphy 4030 Yachay 4031 ais523 OPEN CASES --- [none] SUSPENDED CASES --- 4030 Entered into Moot [Due Mon 29 May 2023 19:28:28] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030 Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4031 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sun 21 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4031 This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain"). 4029 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 21 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4029 There was an infraction noted in this message. 4028 Judged FALSE by G. [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4028 There was an infraction noted in this message. 4027 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 14 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4027 This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. 4026 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523 [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4026 In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. 4025 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sat 13 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4025 In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action. 4024 Judged TRUE by snail [Thu 18 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4024 This means the same thing as "each and every". 4023 Judged TRUE by 4st [Fri 19 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4023 Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. 4022 Judged TRUE by nix [Mon 08 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4022 I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes.
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4031 Judged FALSE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4031 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4031 === This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain"). == Caller:4st Judge: ais523 Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by 4st:18 May 2023 19:43:07 Assigned to ais523: 21 May 2023 14:07:37 Judged FALSE by ais523: 21 May 2023 16:38:25 == Caller's Evidence: On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > Title: Sacrilege > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Janet > > Coauthors: > > { > > Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance"). > > } Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime. -- Gratuitous Arguments by Jason: CFJ 1881. CFJ 2589. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker". -- Gratiutous Arguments by ais523: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: > Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, > cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, >
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4029 Judged FALSE by Murphy
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4029 === There was an infraction noted in this message. == Caller:Yachay Judge: Murphy Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04 Assigned to Murphy: 21 May 2023 14:05:04 Judged FALSE by Murphy: 21 May 2023 21:19:30 == Caller's Evidence: Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. Caller's Arguments: So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was held up by, but if we do, then: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other *current* things of the game work too? - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G: >> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: >> >> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional sense. Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > Invisibilitating > > Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html ais523 wrote: > It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete > list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where > their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the > list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal > 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) > > Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's > no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that > Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, > but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best > interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or > undefined but don't provide a definition.) G. wrote: I grepped the full BUS and OFF mboxes, and searched the CFJ archive, and I believe that there were never any legal proceedings accusing anyone of Invisibilitating, either while it existed in the previous iteration or afterwards. The only references I found were the enactment, the repeal, and the appearances in the ruleset or the proposal. This vaguely matched my memory that it was rarely if ever used. In this special case, I disagree that we are limited to th
Re: OFF: [@all] Confirming birthdays
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:10 PM juan via agora-official wrote: > 2009-05-04 G. Goethe is my former nickname so it's actually 2001-02-04 for me: > v Goethe 2001-02-04 2003-03-24 Thanks much for checking. -G.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Sun 21 May 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4029 Assigned to Murphy Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:05:04 4030 Assigned to Yachay Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:06:53 4031 Assigned to ais523 Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:07:37 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4022 nix 4023 4st 4024 snail 4025 Janet 4028 G. 4029 Murphy 4030 Yachay 4031 ais523 OPEN CASES --- 4031 Assigned to ais523 [Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:07:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4031 This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain"). 4030 Assigned to Yachay [Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:06:53] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030 Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. 4029 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:05:04] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4029 There was an infraction noted in this message. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4028 Judged FALSE by G. [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4028 There was an infraction noted in this message. 4027 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 14 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4027 This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. 4026 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523 [Fri 12 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4026 In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. 4025 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sat 13 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4025 In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action. 4024 Judged TRUE by snail [Thu 18 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4024 This means the same thing as "each and every". 4023 Judged TRUE by 4st [Fri 19 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4023 Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. 4022 Judged TRUE by nix [Mon 08 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4022 I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4031 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4031. I assign it to ais523. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4031 === CFJ 4031 === This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain"). == Caller:4st Judge: ais523 == History: Called by 4st:18 May 2023 19:43:07 Assigned to ais523: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > Title: Sacrilege > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Janet > > Coauthors: > > { > > Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance"). > > } Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime. -- Gratuitous Arguments by Jason: CFJ 1881. CFJ 2589. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.) It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker". -- Gratiutous Arguments by ais523: On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote: > Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource, > cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet, > juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail, > Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named "Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4030 Assigned to Yachay
The below CFJ is 4030. I assign it to Yachay. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 === CFJ 4030 === Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. == Caller:nix Judge: Yachay == History: Called by nix:17 May 2023 23:14:29 Assigned to Yachay: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > Previous versions of rule 2680 said "CAN once" (e.g. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016950.html > - mail-archive.com isn't archiving old rulesets so I had to link the > private archive). > > However, proposal 8943 > (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13159.html) > changed it to a version without the "once". We generally say "CAN once" > if an action is only intended to be possible once, and the "once", once > present, is now repealed. This means that it should be possible to > anoint multiple ritual numbers using the same ritual act. Caller's Arguments: To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in other games. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the win). For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X happens, a player CAN Y" language. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4029. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029 === CFJ 4029 === There was an infraction noted in this message. == Caller:Yachay Judge: Murphy == History: Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. Caller's Arguments: So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was held up by, but if we do, then: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other *current* things of the game work too? - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G: >> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: >> >> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional sense. Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > Invisibilitating > > Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html ais523 wrote: > It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete > list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where > their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the > list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal > 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) > > Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's > no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that > Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, > but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best > interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or > undefined but don't provide a definition.) G. wrote: I grepped the full BUS and OFF mboxes, and searched the CFJ archive, and I believe that there were never any legal proceedings accusing anyone of Invisibilitating, either while it existed in the previous iteration or afterwards. The only references I found were the enactment, the repeal, and the appearances in the ruleset or the proposal. This vaguely matched my memory that it was rarely if ever used. In this special case, I disagree that we are limited to the R217 definitional sources - in particular, because there are *no* R217 definitional sources, and the "text of the rules" says Invisibilitati
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4023 Judged TRUE by 4st
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4023 === Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. == Caller:Aspen Barred:Janet Judge: 4st Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29 Assigned to 4st: 08 May 2023 16:53:01 Judged TRUE by 4st: 19 May 2023 20:03:44 == Caller's Arguments: Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'): https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote: > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote: > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even > > by r105 standards? > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > inherently ambiguous. -- Gratuitous Arguments by nix: Gratuitous FOR: "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it. Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power. Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would be surplusage. Gratuitous Arguments by nix: I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to argue the exact opposite of what the intent was. Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. Gratuitous Arguments by G.: Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to a problematic cycle. Consider the following: 1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em. Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text. 2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along, but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry right? 3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and might have been perfectly clear to most people. This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assume
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4028 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4028 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4028 === There was an infraction noted in this message. == Caller:Yachay Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 12:00:00 Assigned to G.: 12 May 2023 13:20:12 Judged FALSE by G.: 12 May 2023 13:20:12 == Caller's Evidence: > If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason > described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st > for being a player. > > If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason > described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st > for holding an office. > > If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason > described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st > for their latest message posted to fora. > > If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason > described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st > for jaywalking without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of > swagger. -- Judge G.'s Arguments: FALSE, due to the use of conditional announcements in the noting attempts, where the conditions were not "reasonably straightforward to evaluate at the time with publicly-available information at the time of communication" as required by Rule 2518/1. In general, the "reasonably straightforward" clause means that the caller themselves must be able to resolve the conditional with a bit of minor research in the archives (e.g. looking at recent past activities) such that resolving the conditional is a fairly minor act of interpretation/convenience. These conditionals, which hinge on a complex question, are not so easy to evaluate. Judge G.'s Evidence: Rule 2518/1 (Power=3) Determinacy If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate. A communication purporting to express conditional intent to perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes the communication. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4027 Judged FALSE by Murphy
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4027 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4027 === This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. == Caller:4st Judge: Murphy Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by 4st:08 May 2023 14:39:14 Assigned to Murphy: 08 May 2023 16:55:33 Judged FALSE by Murphy: 14 May 2023 23:15:00 == Caller's note: Er typo [in the CFJ statement]: "This proposal introduces" should be "This contract introduces" Caller's Evidence: I create and join the following contract (new! clearly saying what proposal can do!): { Players can leave this contract at any time. When a player makes a rule change via proposal, that proposal CAN directly apply that rule change to private information in this contract, even if the author is not party to this contract. This contract has private information that is a copy of the Agoran ruleset. } Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: "change/alter/modify/update/amend/fix a rule/the power/the title to read", "delete/destroy/shred/eliminate a rule", and "create/spawn/induce a rule" are presumed to introduce ambiguity even though all seem pretty clear that they want to make a rule/power/title be something, repeal a rule, or enact a rule. Repeal a portion of a rule seems to introduce a similar ambiguity. THUS, this contract would introduce a global ambiguity: did the author mean to do the rule change to the contract... or the rule? (See Rule 105 "Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect." Arguments AGAINST: It should be implied that things in Agora are reasonable unless otherwise stated. EG Amend the power of something should be a valid, unambiguous rule change, because it is reasonable to interpret it that way. (Another argument against that may make this matter unfortunately trivial: R217 means the rules take precedence over contracts, although the rules are silent on whether this introduces ambiguity, however, the fact that I have to ask implies that it is so?) -- Judge Murphy's Arguments: This contract doesn't introduce ambiguity of any sort. First, just because a proposal making a rule change CAN apply it to the contract's copy of the rules, doesn't mean that it does. It only does if the proposal says it does. Second, just because a proposal making a rule change does apply it to the contract's copy of the rules, doesn't mean that it applies it /only/ to the contract's copy of the rules. It only does if the proposal says it does. And in that case, it's unambiguously not a rule change. Furthermore, even if a more carefully worded contract made it ambiguous whether a proposal making a rule change also affected something defined by the contract, that wouldn't be an ambiguity in the rule change itself, but an ambiguity in a side effect of that rule change (or of the proposal itself). I judge FALSE. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4026 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4026 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4026 === In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. == Caller:G. Judge: ais523 Judgement: IRRELEVANT == History: Called by G.: 04 May 2023 23:05:01 Assigned to ais523: 08 May 2023 16:54:56 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523: 12 May 2023 23:34:38 == Caller's Arguments: Currently, an action that's made ILLEGAL by a SHALL NOT does not in itself make that action regulated by clause (1) of R2125 (SHALL NOT is not a limit, allowance, enablement, or permission). I believe clause 1 used to include 'forbid' which would have made SHALL NOTs regulated, but that word or a synonym is not there now. "Interpretation" is a thought/speech act and as a whole - it's not subject to success or failure (clause 2). Interpretation in certain contexts (CFJ judgements) may change a record for clause 3, but interpretation in general does not do that. Therefore, my interpretation is that the clause in question forbids itself. Also, as these CFJ arguments are themselves an interpretation, I believe these CFJ arguments are an interpretation about the legality of making these CFJ arguments and I would ask the judge to note if this is so. Caller's Evidence: Rule 2125/13 (Power=3) Regulated Actions An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. -- Judge ais523's Arguments: Here's an excerpt from a proposal (8867) that was adopted recently: > [ > The goal of this is to expand on our banning system and implement some > clearly defined values into the rules of Agora. This comprises two main > changes. > > The first removes the "free speech" clause from R478 and replaces it > with a bill of expectations that largely seek to maximize participation > while recognizing ways in which that might reasonably be abridged. > [snip] > > Amend R478 by deleting the following text: > > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall > be prohibited from participating in the Fora [snip] The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict. Additionally, I can't even work out whether the statement of the CFJ is true or not without attempting to interpret the rules, something which might turn out to be illegal (and for which I can't know, before attempting it, whether it's illegal or not). Normally, when judging a CFJ whose statement has been posed incorrectly, I provide arguments to let people know the truth or otherwise of the statement that they probably meant to ask. However, with the protections that would normally be provided to me repealed, I do not wish to attempt that in this case. Instead, I will simply note that the caller has asked the wrong question: this is a question of interpretation, and various parts of the ruleset affect the meaning of various other parts of the ruleset. It isn't relevant to the game whether a hypothetical action might or might not breach a *particular* rule if, e.g., the same action is permitted by a different rule. When trying to judge this CFJ, I got as far as "OK, there's a distinction between 'the rules proscribe this action' and 'rule 2125 proscribes this action' – does that matter here", looked at the other rules that might matter, discovered that one of them had had the relevant sentence fragment repealed, and realised I was on dangerous ground even attempting to understand the
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4025 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4025 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4025 === In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action. == Caller:4st Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by 4st:04 May 2023 21:04:40 Assigned to Janet:08 May 2023 16:54:24 Judged FALSE by Janet:13 May 2023 00:22:49 == Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: Basically, this depends on whether I was found guilty of violating No Faking. If I was not, then G has interpreted the rules to proscribe the collection of taxes as referee. Arguments AGAINST: Similarly, if I am guilty, then no violation has occurred. Caller's Evidence: On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 2:05 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 1:55 AM Forest Sweeney wrote: > > > > Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game action > > for each active player: > > I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of Referee. > > (The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay, ais523, > > cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.) > > > > Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done on a > > case by case basis. > > The above public statement by 4st was noted by Yachary as a violation > of rule 2471 (No Faking). As 4st is the Referee, the Arbitor is the > Investigator. > > I investigate as follows: > > The alleged violation was not merely an assertion that taxes were owed > by certain parties. It was an assertion that taxes were owed as part > of the official abilities and/or duties of the Referee. If a > statement about taxes had been made to BUS, without reference to the > Referee, it *might* be defensible (depending on context) to say "I was > talking about my own private unregulated taxes which exist in my head > but happen to be 0". But in this case, the clear "as Referee, I do > the following game actions" and context of sending to OFF makes the > assertion that this is part of the referee's official position a core > part of the statement. This is a direct falsehood. It is not > reasonable to claim that those duties were part of some kind of > "unregulated yet official" task because that doesn't make sense - > claiming to be acting "as Referee" to levy taxes is essentially > synonymous with claiming that the taxes are a regulated or required > thing, which is a lie. It is also not a reasonable defense to say "I > never actually *said explicitly* that this was a referee duty" - the > implication contained in the composition of the statement is suitably > strong to (falsely) imply the connection with the office. > > Further, I'll state for the record that I was (momentarily) fooled. > Not to the point of thinking I owed taxes, but my thought process went > "did I miss a proposal? a pledge or contract about referee's duties? > or is a mousetrap scam maybe coming?" Had there been no subsequent > comments, I might have searched my Agoran emails for "tax" before > concluding that no such taxes exist, and I still would have been > suspicious of a hidden mousetrap. As it is, I depended on a statement > by Yachary, who stated that they also had to "review the rules" before > concluding falsehood. So between myself and Yachary, there is > sufficient to find that the statement was misleading enough to be a > violation of the cited rule. > > This violation has a (default) class of 2. The fact that the > defendant revealed the situation right away is somewhat mitigating, > while using the guise of an official position is somewhat aggravating. > Balancing these, I conclude this investigation by specifying 2 blots > as the penalty. > > As a final comment, I'll note that, even if the officer-part of this > were left out, the mention of taxes would not necessarily be harmless > - saying " gee I was talking about my private unregulated taxes" is > not *necessarily* a sufficient defense - as I stated above, it depends > on context. On one hand, we don't want to penalize fun and silly > comments (like "I floop the doop" or whatever). But the flipside is >
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4024 Judged TRUE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4024 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4024 === This means the same thing as "each and every". == Caller:4st Judge: snail Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by 4st:02 May 2023 17:13:03 Assigned to snail:08 May 2023 16:53:45 Judged TRUE by snail: 15 May 2023 00:17:58 Motion to reconsider group-filed: 16 May 2023 12:42:48 Judged TRUE by snail: 18 May 2023 03:19:11 == Caller's Evidence: On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:38 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > I support all intents to award anything. > Discussion has taken place and the appropriate people have placed their > intents, I trust those people and my opinion was considered. > (We can award more than one thing too if you want to add MORE intents :D ) Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: This is extremely clear and unambiguous language. Arguments AGAINST: This only provides support for one tabled intent, one that doesn't exist. Please find this CFJ as FOR. I find it ridiculous I have to ask this. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: For context, this came up on discord. There was an assertion that supporting "all" intents is a single atomic action where if any of them would fail, they all do. So if 4st previously supported one of the intents and can't do so again, they all would fail. But using the term "every" avoids this problem and makes them fail or succeed together. -- Judge snail's Arguments: I once again judge CFJ 4024 TRUE, but for different reasoning. For any action taken using written language, there is an undeniable amount of ambiguity, inexactness, because all words have different meanings to different people. All talks of "unambiguity" in Agora are really about what we can take as "practically" unambiguous. Ambiguity is more of a spectrum, from "nobody agrees on what this means" to "every person on the planet agrees it means this" (the impossible, unambiguous end of the spectrum). For something to be "practically" unambiguous in Agora, we only need all players to agree to play as if it is the case. New players coming to Agora adds new possible interpretations to action text, and brings back ambiguity in cases where there used to be none. Fortunately we have tools in Agora to reach an agreement on what a particular message meant. A player can say something, intending to take one action, but then after discussion, CFJs, and rule clarification, come to the conclusion that they didn't actually do what they intended: the setting forth of intent in by-announcement actions, then, is augmented by this procedure of coming to an agreement. This is what we sign up for when we join Agora: our actions may be reinterpreted retroactively through judicial process, and our intent when sending messages must include that. This unfortunately makes most of a player's intent when sending an action negligible, besides the fact it must be clear they want to attempt to do something, regardless of what thing it is. So the relevant part of "specifying the action and setting forth intent to perform that action by sending that message, doing both clearly and unambiguously" is the specification of the action, as the intent to do something is clearly there. Is it ambiguous if the action was specified? It is clear there is disagreement about what the specified action was, so practical unambiguity has not yet been met. But of course, to resolve this ambiguity, we use the tools for that, CFJs, and the 4 factors we use for them. "Best interest of the game" here seems to be relevant: the failure to object to certain powerful intents like those of RWO's could be disastrous. On the contrary, actions doing things you didn't explicitly specify could be a violation of consent: but remember we already do this to degree when we reinterpret actions via cfj, as "explicit" is such a subjective term. The best interests of the game could serve to be clarified in the rules, but it seems to lean toward success of supports and objections in this case. "Game Custom" is important in all action text cases: we copy what other people do when we see them take actions. We ascribe meanings to our actions in one case based on what could be wildly different cases, but cases that feel the same. The closer an example we can get, the better. "I object to all int
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4022 Judged TRUE by nix
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4022 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4022 === I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes. == Caller:4st Judge: nix Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by 4st:30 Apr 2023 01:13:06 Assigned to nix: 08 May 2023 16:51:16 Judged TRUE by nix: 08 May 2023 17:33:26 == Caller's Arguments: Arguments PARADOX: IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey, and could not violate no faking. IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective, and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS, I should not be found guilty. However, I was found guilty of violating No Faking. Arbitor's Evidence: Alleged rules violation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016998.html Noting of alleged violation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051171.html Investigation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051175.html -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: Gratuitous arguments for TRUE: It's trivially TRUE that 4st was not found guilty of violating No Faking by "collecting taxes". E was found guilty of violating No Faking by asserting in public that collecting taxes (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) was done "as Referee". The factual matter of whether tax collection was EFFECTIVE is in fact IRRELEVANT (as it impacts nothing in the game), what's relevant for the guilty verdict is that the act of collection is not part of the Referee's duties or abilities. -- Response by 4st: It is not part of my duties; it is also not not part of my duties. With regard to ability, collecting taxes is not part of the rules, so it is unregulated, unless of course No Faking finds it effective, and therefore, successful. -- Response by G.: After some discussion on discord it was a bit clear 4st and I were taking entirely different angles on this case. To clarify, I did not address or think about the "unregulated" angle or R2125 at all, but rather took No Faking at face value. So I defer to 4sts arguments on the unregulated nature of the whole thing. My investigation was based on the following, solely determining if eir statement was falsy: - If 4st had written "As an official duty of the office of Referee, I collect taxes" I think most people would say that was a lie, as there was no official duty. - 4st is noting that the phrasing e used "As Referee, I collect taxes" was "technically true" as e was the Referee, and doing a (wholly unofficial and unregulated) tax. - My investigation asserted that "As Referee, I collect taxes" in a message to OFF, with the phrase "game action", with no disclaimers etc. was close enough in content and context to strongly imply "As an official duty of the Referee, I collect taxes" - false advertising is falsy. -- Judge nix's Arguments: On April 29th 4st published the following message: Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game action for each active player: I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of Referee. (The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.) Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done on a case by case basis. Furthermore, I intend to, without objection, declare apathy, specifying all players. -- 4st Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor Uncertified Bad Idea Generator Up for debate is whether the attempt to collect taxes is a violation of "No Faking" which reads: A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A public statement is falsy if any of the following was true at the time of publication: * The statement was not true and the author knew or should have known that it was not true. * The author believed the statement to be not true. A public statement is a lie if it is falsy and any of the following is true: * The author made the statement with intent to mislead. * The author, in the s
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
The CFJ in the below message is 4028. I assign it to G. Statement: "There was an infraction noted in this message." Judgement FALSE, due to the use of conditional announcements in the noting attempts, where the conditions were not "reasonably straightforward to evaluate at the time with publicly-available information at the time of communication" as required by Rule 2518/1. In general, the "reasonably straightforward" clause means that the caller themselves must be able to resolve the conditional with a bit of minor research in the archives (e.g. looking at recent past activities) such that resolving the conditional is a fairly minor act of interpretation/convenience. These conditionals, which hinge on a complex question, are not so easy to evaluate. [I'm not meaning to stack the deck by judging this one, but rather to expedite a different case if someone attempts to Note Invisibilitating unconditionally. I'd assign any such case to someone else. But hiding behind conditionals for criminal allegations doesn't/shouldn't work - if you want to Note, you need to take a risk and unconditionally allege that a specific act was a violation]. Rule 2518/1 (Power=3) Determinacy If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate. A communication purporting to express conditional intent to perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes the communication. -- Forwarded message - From: Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business Date: Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:00 AM Subject: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it To: Agora Business Cc: Yachay Wayllukuq So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was held up by, but if we do, then: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other *current* things of the game work too? - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this. G., the person who proposed to add that rule, is both the default investigator for the Referee, and the person who holds the office for CfJs, so I trust that this is gameplay that they intended and will participate in. I look forward to the investigation (if any) and the resulting CfJ. Their arguments in particular. If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for being a player. If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for holding an office. If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for their latest message posted to fora. If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. I CfJ: "There was an infraction noted in this message." On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:48 PM Yachay Wayllukuq wrote: > What is Invisibilitating? > > On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:42 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> I submit the following proposal, "now you don't see it", AI=1: >> >> >> >> >> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: >> >> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. >> >> >> [ >> Rule 2056 history (confirmed by checking archives): >> >> Enacted (Power=1) by Proposal 4513 "Invisibilitating" (Steve), 10 July >> 2003. >> Repealed by Proposal 4759 "Olive Repeals" (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005. >> ] >> >> >> >> >
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Mon 08 May 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4022 Assigned to nix Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:51:16 4023 Assigned to 4st Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:53:01 4024 Assigned to snail Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:53:45 4025 Assigned to Janet Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:54:24 4026 Assigned to ais523 Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:54:56 4027 Assigned to Murphy Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:55:33 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4021 G. Yachay 4022 nix 4023 4st 4024 snail 4025 Janet 4026 ais523 4027 Murphy OPEN CASES --- 4027 Assigned to Murphy [Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:55:33] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4027 This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. 4026 Assigned to ais523 [Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:54:56] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4026 In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. 4025 Assigned to Janet [Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:54:24] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4025 In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action. 4024 Assigned to snail [Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:53:45] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4024 This means the same thing as "each and every". 4023 Assigned to 4st [Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:53:01] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4023 Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. 4022 Assigned to nix [Due Mon 15 May 2023 16:51:16] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4022 I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4021 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4021 Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. 4020 Judged INSUFFICIENT by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4020 jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously successful. 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4019 In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4027 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4027. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4027 === CFJ 4027 === This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes. == Caller:4st Judge: Murphy Judgement: == History: Called by 4st:08 May 2023 14:39:14 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's note: Er typo [in the CFJ statement]: "This proposal introduces" should be "This contract introduces" Caller's Evidence: I create and join the following contract (new! clearly saying what proposal can do!): { Players can leave this contract at any time. When a player makes a rule change via proposal, that proposal CAN directly apply that rule change to private information in this contract, even if the author is not party to this contract. This contract has private information that is a copy of the Agoran ruleset. } Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: "change/alter/modify/update/amend/fix a rule/the power/the title to read", "delete/destroy/shred/eliminate a rule", and "create/spawn/induce a rule" are presumed to introduce ambiguity even though all seem pretty clear that they want to make a rule/power/title be something, repeal a rule, or enact a rule. Repeal a portion of a rule seems to introduce a similar ambiguity. THUS, this contract would introduce a global ambiguity: did the author mean to do the rule change to the contract... or the rule? (See Rule 105 "Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect." Arguments AGAINST: It should be implied that things in Agora are reasonable unless otherwise stated. EG Amend the power of something should be a valid, unambiguous rule change, because it is reasonable to interpret it that way. (Another argument against that may make this matter unfortunately trivial: R217 means the rules take precedence over contracts, although the rules are silent on whether this introduces ambiguity, however, the fact that I have to ask implies that it is so?) ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4025 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4025. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4025 === CFJ 4025 === In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the rules as proscribing an unregulated action. == Caller:4st Judge: Janet == History: Called by 4st:04 May 2023 21:04:40 Assigned to Janet:[now] == Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: Basically, this depends on whether I was found guilty of violating No Faking. If I was not, then G has interpreted the rules to proscribe the collection of taxes as referee. Arguments AGAINST: Similarly, if I am guilty, then no violation has occurred. Caller's Evidence: On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 2:05 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 1:55 AM Forest Sweeney wrote: > > > > Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game action > > for each active player: > > I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of Referee. > > (The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay, ais523, > > cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.) > > > > Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done on a > > case by case basis. > > The above public statement by 4st was noted by Yachary as a violation > of rule 2471 (No Faking). As 4st is the Referee, the Arbitor is the > Investigator. > > I investigate as follows: > > The alleged violation was not merely an assertion that taxes were owed > by certain parties. It was an assertion that taxes were owed as part > of the official abilities and/or duties of the Referee. If a > statement about taxes had been made to BUS, without reference to the > Referee, it *might* be defensible (depending on context) to say "I was > talking about my own private unregulated taxes which exist in my head > but happen to be 0". But in this case, the clear "as Referee, I do > the following game actions" and context of sending to OFF makes the > assertion that this is part of the referee's official position a core > part of the statement. This is a direct falsehood. It is not > reasonable to claim that those duties were part of some kind of > "unregulated yet official" task because that doesn't make sense - > claiming to be acting "as Referee" to levy taxes is essentially > synonymous with claiming that the taxes are a regulated or required > thing, which is a lie. It is also not a reasonable defense to say "I > never actually *said explicitly* that this was a referee duty" - the > implication contained in the composition of the statement is suitably > strong to (falsely) imply the connection with the office. > > Further, I'll state for the record that I was (momentarily) fooled. > Not to the point of thinking I owed taxes, but my thought process went > "did I miss a proposal? a pledge or contract about referee's duties? > or is a mousetrap scam maybe coming?" Had there been no subsequent > comments, I might have searched my Agoran emails for "tax" before > concluding that no such taxes exist, and I still would have been > suspicious of a hidden mousetrap. As it is, I depended on a statement > by Yachary, who stated that they also had to "review the rules" before > concluding falsehood. So between myself and Yachary, there is > sufficient to find that the statement was misleading enough to be a > violation of the cited rule. > > This violation has a (default) class of 2. The fact that the > defendant revealed the situation right away is somewhat mitigating, > while using the guise of an official position is somewhat aggravating. > Balancing these, I conclude this investigation by specifying 2 blots > as the penalty. > > As a final comment, I'll note that, even if the officer-part of this > were left out, the mention of taxes would not necessarily be harmless > - saying " gee I was talking about my private unregulated taxes" is > not *necessarily* a sufficient defense - as I stated above, it depends > on context. On one hand, we don't want to penalize fun and silly > comments (like "I floop the doop" or whatever). But the flipside is > that before No Faking existed, these kinds of fakeries were a bit > problematic, and occasionally used to genuinely fool people - maybe > no
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4026 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4026. I assign it to ais523. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4026 === CFJ 4026 === In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. == Caller:G. Judge: ais523 == History: Called by G.: 04 May 2023 23:05:01 Assigned to ais523: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Currently, an action that's made ILLEGAL by a SHALL NOT does not in itself make that action regulated by clause (1) of R2125 (SHALL NOT is not a limit, allowance, enablement, or permission). I believe clause 1 used to include 'forbid' which would have made SHALL NOTs regulated, but that word or a synonym is not there now. "Interpretation" is a thought/speech act and as a whole - it's not subject to success or failure (clause 2). Interpretation in certain contexts (CFJ judgements) may change a record for clause 3, but interpretation in general does not do that. Therefore, my interpretation is that the clause in question forbids itself. Also, as these CFJ arguments are themselves an interpretation, I believe these CFJ arguments are an interpretation about the legality of making these CFJ arguments and I would ask the judge to note if this is so. Caller's Evidence: Rule 2125/13 (Power=3) Regulated Actions An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4024 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4024. I assign it to snail. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4024 === CFJ 4024 === This means the same thing as "each and every". == Caller:4st Judge: snail == History: Called by 4st:02 May 2023 17:13:03 Assigned to snail:[now] == Caller's Evidence: On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:38 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > I support all intents to award anything. > Discussion has taken place and the appropriate people have placed their > intents, I trust those people and my opinion was considered. > (We can award more than one thing too if you want to add MORE intents :D ) Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: This is extremely clear and unambiguous language. Arguments AGAINST: This only provides support for one tabled intent, one that doesn't exist. Please find this CFJ as FOR. I find it ridiculous I have to ask this. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: For context, this came up on discord. There was an assertion that supporting "all" intents is a single atomic action where if any of them would fail, they all do. So if 4st previously supported one of the intents and can't do so again, they all would fail. But using the term "every" avoids this problem and makes them fail or succeed together. ==
OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st
The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023 === CFJ 4023 === Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. == Caller:Aspen Barred:Janet Judge: 4st == History: Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29 Assigned to 4st: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'): https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote: > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote: > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even > > by r105 standards? > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > inherently ambiguous. -- Gratuitous Arguments by nix: Gratuitous FOR: "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it. Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power. Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would be surplusage. Gratuitous Arguments by nix: I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to argue the exact opposite of what the intent was. Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. Gratuitous Arguments by G.: Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to a problematic cycle. Consider the following: 1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em. Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text. 2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along, but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry right? 3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and might have been perfectly clear to most people. This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound reasoning, nor does it make for good rules-writing. Whatever else the merits of
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4022 Assigned to nix
The below CFJ is 4022. I assign it to nix. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4022 === CFJ 4022 === I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes. == Caller:4st Judge: nix == History: Called by 4st:30 Apr 2023 01:13:06 Assigned to nix: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Arguments PARADOX: IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey, and could not violate no faking. IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective, and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS, I should not be found guilty. However, I was found guilty of violating No Faking. Arbitor's Evidence: Alleged rules violation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016998.html Noting of alleged violation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051171.html Investigation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051175.html -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: Gratuitous arguments for TRUE: It's trivially TRUE that 4st was not found guilty of violating No Faking by "collecting taxes". E was found guilty of violating No Faking by asserting in public that collecting taxes (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) was done "as Referee". The factual matter of whether tax collection was EFFECTIVE is in fact IRRELEVANT (as it impacts nothing in the game), what's relevant for the guilty verdict is that the act of collection is not part of the Referee's duties or abilities. -- Response by 4st: It is not part of my duties; it is also not not part of my duties. With regard to ability, collecting taxes is not part of the rules, so it is unregulated, unless of course No Faking finds it effective, and therefore, successful. -- Response by G.: After some discussion on discord it was a bit clear 4st and I were taking entirely different angles on this case. To clarify, I did not address or think about the "unregulated" angle or R2125 at all, but rather took No Faking at face value. So I defer to 4sts arguments on the unregulated nature of the whole thing. My investigation was based on the following, solely determining if eir statement was falsy: - If 4st had written "As an official duty of the office of Referee, I collect taxes" I think most people would say that was a lie, as there was no official duty. - 4st is noting that the phrasing e used "As Referee, I collect taxes" was "technically true" as e was the Referee, and doing a (wholly unofficial and unregulated) tax. - My investigation asserted that "As Referee, I collect taxes" in a message to OFF, with the phrase "game action", with no disclaimers etc. was close enough in content and context to strongly imply "As an official duty of the Referee, I collect taxes" - false advertising is falsy. ==
OFF: (@Herald) Re: [Arbitor] Wooden Gavel Intent
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 1:48 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > I intend (as Arbitor), with 2 Agoran Consent, to award the (2022) > patent title of Wooden Gavel to snail, for eir judgement in CFJ 3971 > (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3971). OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ WHEREAS over four days have passed since the above announcement was made, in a clear, conspicuous, explicit, and unobfuscated manner and WHEREAS the above announcement of intent has gained the support of Yachay, snail, and nix and WHEREAS, during that time, there were no public objections to the matter to be seen, heard, or read I HEREBY award the (2022) patent title of Wooden Gavel to snail, for eir judgement in CFJ 3971. SO THAT the Herald may record the distinction on the Scroll of Agora, such that snail's name should appear there, for as long as the scroll should exist, and the skill and wisdom of snail's judgement may shine forth to inspire future generations of Judges. BE IT SO ORDERED > Reason for selection: An excellent and thorough walkthrough of a > complex core set of rules (the tabled action rules) - the first sort > of "full examination" of the method's functioning since a rather > substantial 2021 rewrite, putting the use of those "new" rules on > solid ground and affirming that they are working more-or-less as > desired. > > Also, if e'd judged that particular case the other way, my current > intent would be meaningless and the wooden gavel award impossible, so > that's a tidy logical loop. > > = the Arbitor
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 28 Apr 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [none] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4012 snail 4017 ais523 4st 4018 nix 4019 Janet 4021 G. 4018 Murphy Yachay OPEN CASES --- [none] RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4021 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4021 Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. 4020 Judged INSUFFICIENT by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4020 jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously successful. 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4019 In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. 4018 Judged TRUE by nix [Fri 31 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
[I think I got all the judge requests, but please let me know if the list is missing someone.] Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 21 Apr 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- [None] INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4012 snail 4017 ais523 4st 4018 nix 4019 Janet 4021 G. Yachay 4018 Murphy OPEN CASES --- [None] RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4021 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4021 Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. 4020 Judged INSUFFICIENT by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4020 jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously successful. 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4019 In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. 4018 Judged TRUE by nix [Fri 31 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone. 4017 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Sat 25 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4017 snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919.
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4021 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4021 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4021 === Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. == Caller:snail Barred:nix Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by snail: 09 Apr 2023 20:40:20 Assigned to G.: 10 Apr 2023 16:02:37 Judged FALSE by G.: 10 Apr 2023 17:10:32 == Caller's Arguments: Arguments for TRUE: Snail, Janet, and nix all tied for highest modified stone rockiness at the end of the week, so the following rule text applied: In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em. snail was the player that "reached first", since e was the first player to ever reach (though it was for the Score Stone), so the Hot Potato stone is transferred to em, as e reached for it the previous week, and the previous week's stone specifications are what are referred to by "stone specified." Complications may arise if you consider the sentence before this: At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in the previous week is transferred to em. but it seems to merely supply the context under which "stone specified", "in a tie", and "tied player" is to be defined. "Reaching" is defined in a separate paragraph: Once a week each player CAN "reach" for a specified stone owned by Agora by announcement. It is worth determining what "in a tie", "stone specified", and "reached first" each mean. Also note that "When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence." It seems pretty clear to me that when the rules say "reached first" it refers to the player that took the reaching game action first, among the relevant players, generally, and not specifically "in the previous week" as others may argue, as that wording isn't present in the text. -- Gratuitous Arguments by nix: First, the text itself is as follows: At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in the previous week is transferred to em. In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em. When a player receives a stone in this way, eir Base Rockiness is set to 0. The immediately relevant sentence is "In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em." "In a tie" specifies a context, and as an adverbial phrase can be moved around. It seems that snail is interpretting it as "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em in a tie." It can also be read as "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first in a tie is transferred to em." Now, I'll grant that each reading is equally likely if we have no context. The first sentence of the paragraph provides the context of a weekly reach, which favors the second reading. However, even if we ignore that context, we have two equally textually supported readings. It'd then come down to our Four Factors. There's no precedent or previous gameplay that disagrees with either reading. There's a clear "best interest of the game" to make it play as it is intended, and not give a player a permanent advantage. "Common sense" also seems to favor the reading that is more fair. Thus, while both readings might be plausible, only one is supportable by our judicial tradition. -- Caller's response to gratuitous arguments by nix: This assertion deserves skepticism. Moving the phrase around changes the meaning of the sentence. It may be fine for "When X, Y happens." meaning the same as "Y happens when X." But the sentence is more complicated. When X happens, the Y specified by Z that is a part of X is W. This is the same as "The Y specified by Z is W, when X." but not the same as "The Y specified by (Z when X) is W" or even "The (Y when X) specified by Z is W" or "The Y specified by Z is (W when X)" . To be clear, the difference here is that the adverbial phrase (when X) applies to the whole subsequent clause when it is seperated at the start, or the whole preceding clause when at the end, but when situated in the middle, it only modifies one part of the clause, causing a different meaning. Applying t
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Mon 10 Apr 2023 16:05:51 UTC DEADLINES (details below) --- 4021 Assigned to G. Due Mon 17 Apr 2023 16:02:37 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4012 snail 4017 ais523 4st 4018 nix 4019 Janet 4021 G. (timeout: 4018 Murphy) OPEN CASES --- 4021 Assigned to G. [Due Mon 17 Apr 2023 16:02:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4021 Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4020 Judged INSUFFICIENT by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4020 jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously successful. 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4019 In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. 4018 Judged TRUE by nix [Fri 31 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone. 4017 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Sat 25 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4017 snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. 4016 Judged FALSE by nix [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4016 cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. 4015 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 4012 Judged TRUE by snail [Tue 14 Mar 2023] 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.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4021 Assigned to G.
The below CFJ is 4021. I assign it to G.. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4021 === CFJ 4021 === Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. == Caller:snail Barred:nix Judge: G. == History: Called by snail: 09 Apr 2023 20:40:20 Assigned to G.: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Arguments for TRUE: Snail, Janet, and nix all tied for highest modified stone rockiness at the end of the week, so the following rule text applied: In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em. snail was the player that "reached first", since e was the first player to ever reach (though it was for the Score Stone), so the Hot Potato stone is transferred to em, as e reached for it the previous week, and the previous week's stone specifications are what are referred to by "stone specified." Complications may arise if you consider the sentence before this: At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in the previous week is transferred to em. but it seems to merely supply the context under which "stone specified", "in a tie", and "tied player" is to be defined. "Reaching" is defined in a separate paragraph: Once a week each player CAN "reach" for a specified stone owned by Agora by announcement. It is worth determining what "in a tie", "stone specified", and "reached first" each mean. Also note that "When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence." It seems pretty clear to me that when the rules say "reached first" it refers to the player that took the reaching game action first, among the relevant players, generally, and not specifically "in the previous week" as others may argue, as that wording isn't present in the text. -- Gratuitous Arguments by nix: First, the text itself is as follows: At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in the previous week is transferred to em. In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em. When a player receives a stone in this way, eir Base Rockiness is set to 0. The immediately relevant sentence is "In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em." "In a tie" specifies a context, and as an adverbial phrase can be moved around. It seems that snail is interpretting it as "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em in a tie." It can also be read as "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first in a tie is transferred to em." Now, I'll grant that each reading is equally likely if we have no context. The first sentence of the paragraph provides the context of a weekly reach, which favors the second reading. However, even if we ignore that context, we have two equally textually supported readings. It'd then come down to our Four Factors. There's no precedent or previous gameplay that disagrees with either reading. There's a clear "best interest of the game" to make it play as it is intended, and not give a player a permanent advantage. "Common sense" also seems to favor the reading that is more fair. Thus, while both readings might be plausible, only one is supportable by our judicial tradition. -- Caller's response to gratuitous arguments by nix: This assertion deserves skepticism. Moving the phrase around changes the meaning of the sentence. It may be fine for "When X, Y happens." meaning the same as "Y happens when X." But the sentence is more complicated. When X happens, the Y specified by Z that is a part of X is W. This is the same as "The Y specified by Z is W, when X." but not the same as "The Y specified by (Z when X) is W" or even "The (Y when X) specified by Z is W" or "The Y specified by Z is (W when X)" . To be clear, the difference here is that the adverbial phrase (when X) applies to the whole subsequent clause when it is seperated at the start, or the whole preceding clause when at the end, but when situated in the middle, it only modifies one part of the clause, causing a different meaning. Applying this to the wording of "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em." we have a lot of candidates for modification
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4019 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4019 === In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. == Caller:Juan Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Juan: 27 Mar 2023 18:21:13 Assigned to Janet:02 Apr 2023 17:59:43 Motion to extend filed: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 Judged FALSE by Janet:01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 == Caller's Evidence: Juan wrote, to Agora-Business: > Forest Sweeney via agora-business [2023-03-27 08:56]: >> Here are some interesting reports you should go and look at. What did these >> offices do? What was in these reports? Some things have changed! >> >> In response to the Sun 24 Feb 2008 Conductor Report, I declare the ritual >> number as 10. > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg01091.html >> >> […] >> >> In response to >> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06559.html >> I declare the ritual number as 15. >> >> I'm done for now. I'll be back later until someone inevitably >> doesn't like this and fixes the timeframes we can report on. >> :) It's just 1 point and this is a lot of work to dig up :P > For each natural number N from 16 to 41, I perform the following action: > > { > In response to the Nth ritual act ever performed, I declare the ritual > number to be N. > } > > I have qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance > around the fountain, thereby making it so all of em earn 1 radiance. Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: The only issue here is whether the intent is clear and unambiguous, which ultimately will come down to some criterion of reasonable effort. The only information that needs to be verified is whether 1) there were at least 41 ritual acts, and that 2) none of those have had a ritual number declared in response. Well, I posit that those two facts are patently obvious, even though it might be unreasonably hard to identify specifically which acts were those. But their identity, alas, is irrelevant. -- Judge Janet's Arguments: Although the caller states that this case turns only on whether eir attempts were sufficiently clear, it also depends on whether 4st's purported declarations of the ritual number as 10 to 15 succeeded (at [0]). I find that these purported declarations were not successful. R2680/1 phrases the definitions of ritual acts as ongoing and present tense. Similarly, the enabling of declaring the ritual number is phrased as present and ongoing. Thus, I find that the ENABLING of declaring a ritual number attaches when the ritual act is performed and does not apply retrospectively past when R2680 was enacted. Thus, the purported declarations from 10 to 15 were referencing events that were not ritual acts. However, the caller raises the argument that R2680 does not require the declaration of a ritual number to include a reference to a specific event. I find that this is not correct. R2680's phrasing of "for each ritual act" suggests that the declaration applies to a specific ritual act, and thus the specification of the action must include the specific ritual act. The caller's purported declarations even seem to accept that, as they attempt to include a reference to a specific ritual act, rather than just having a raw declaration. Thus, I find that 4st's purported declarations from 10-15 were invalid because they failed to specify the required ritual act. Although this finding means that I do not need to reach the clarity of caller's purported declarations from 16-41 (sine they are invalid due to not being at most 1 greater than some previous declaration), I will continue to resolve the controversy anyway. Having found that a specific ritual act must be referenced for a declaration to be valid, the question is now what communication standard must be met. I find that the standard is equivalent to the normal "specify" standard. The only clarity standard weaker than that in the rules is used in R869 registration, which is explicitly and deliberately weaker than "by announcement" (and includes "reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously"). Given that the only weaker standard has explicit and clear wording, I find that, under the "game custom" factor, it is not reasonable to read in a weaker clarity standard than "specify". Having found that specific ritual acts must be referen
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4020 assigned to G., judged INSUFFICIENT
I am performing the following actions for procedural reasons of the Arbitor's office. I pledge not to claim any radiance for the actions below. On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 10:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > I CFJ: "jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously > successful" The above CFJ is CFJ 4020. I assign it to G. I judge CFJ 4020 INSUFFICIENT. The Caller has not cleanly presented the existing evidence such as the alleged registration message, which is a bit of an issue; more importantly, in what arguments e does present, e has said e "doesn't have any evidence but e believes..." It is not the job of the judge to assemble said evidence without anything to go on; that would place an undue burden on the judge, as it places em in the position of making potentially intrusive enquiries into whether someone is "really" a person. If it turns out jimmy wasn't a person, or was an already-registered person, ratification or self-ratification will fail retroactively as it would "add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules" (R1551, as interpreted by CFJ 3455 for registration) so asking a judge to push the matter further based on the current publicly-available evidence is not in the best interests of the judicial system or the game. We don't use INSUFFICIENT too often, as judges often take it on themselves to dig in past emails to verify or find evidence and so forth, which is generally part of the game. However, and with no prejudice or fault placed on the caller or this issue should future evidence be presented, as an Arbitor's policy it seems appropriate to draw a line for insufficient on this case. > > On Sunday, April 9, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 4/9/23 10:08, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > > I don't have any damning evidence but I believe that "jimmy" is a > > currently > > > registered player. As such, they couldn't have registered again (R869, > > only > > > the unregistered can register) > > > > > > I intend to ratify without objection: {The person who recently went by > > the > > > name "jimmy" has not ever registered as the player named "jimmy"} > > > > > > I object. > > > > That's unlikely. Most players would know not to do such a thing. Also, I > > don't think this would work, one doesn't register "as" a specific > > player. Even if it is the case that this was an existing player, the > > Cantus Cygneus would still be valid, and the recent registration attempt > > being unsuccessful wouldn't change that. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > >
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Sun 02 Apr 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4019 Assigned to Janet Due Sun 09 Apr 2023 17:59:43 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4013 G. 4012 snail 4017 ais523 n/a 4st 4018 nix 4019 Janet (timeout: 4018 Murphy) OPEN CASES --- 4019 Assigned to Janet [Due Sun 09 Apr 2023 17:59:43] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4019 In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4018 Judged TRUE by nix [Fri 31 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone. 4017 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Sat 25 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4017 snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. 4016 Judged FALSE by nix [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4016 cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. 4015 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 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'. 4012 Judged TRUE by snail [Tue 14 Mar 2023] 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.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4019 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4019. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4019 === CFJ 4019 === In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. == Caller:Juan Judge: Janet == History: Called by Juan: 27 Mar 2023 18:21:13 Assigned to Janet:[now] == Caller's Evidence: Juan wrote, to Agora-Business: > Forest Sweeney via agora-business [2023-03-27 08:56]: >> Here are some interesting reports you should go and look at. What did these >> offices do? What was in these reports? Some things have changed! >> >> In response to the Sun 24 Feb 2008 Conductor Report, I declare the ritual >> number as 10. > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg01091.html >> >> […] >> >> In response to >> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06559.html >> I declare the ritual number as 15. >> >> I'm done for now. I'll be back later until someone inevitably >> doesn't like this and fixes the timeframes we can report on. >> :) It's just 1 point and this is a lot of work to dig up :P > For each natural number N from 16 to 41, I perform the following action: > > { > In response to the Nth ritual act ever performed, I declare the ritual > number to be N. > } > > I have qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance > around the fountain, thereby making it so all of em earn 1 radiance. Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: The only issue here is whether the intent is clear and unambiguous, which ultimately will come down to some criterion of reasonable effort. The only information that needs to be verified is whether 1) there were at least 41 ritual acts, and that 2) none of those have had a ritual number declared in response. Well, I posit that those two facts are patently obvious, even though it might be unreasonably hard to identify specifically which acts were those. But their identity, alas, is irrelevant. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4018 Judged TRUE by nix
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4018 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4018 === I currently own the Radiance stone. == Caller:snail Barred:Janet Judge: nix Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by snail: 15 Mar 2023 03:13:52 Assigned to Murphy: 19 Mar 2023 17:12:25 Murphy Recused: 28 Mar 2023 15:11:03 Assigned to nix: 28 Mar 2023 15:11:03 Judged TRUE by nix: 31 Mar 2023 17:21:00 == Caller's Arguments: Arguments for TRUE: The Radiance stone is the same stone as the Score stone, just with different attributes, and so falls under Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities): If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but with different attributes, then the second entity and its attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions. Caller's Evidence: >From adopted proposal 8919: Amend R2645 by replacing: - Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased by 3. with: - Radiance Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) gains 3 radiance. >From Rule 2645 (The Stones): The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Smoothness): Description. It seems like the different attributes that were changed are just the Stone Name and Description, and common sense indicates they're the same stone. -- Judge nix's Arguments: I judge CFJ 4018 TRUE. Introduction The text of the CFJ is "I currently own the Radiance stone." where "I" refers to snail and "currently" refers to 4 Mar 2023. It seems to me that the caller's argument is that the Radiance Stone and the Score stone are the same based on Radiance essentially being a rebranding of Score. The other plausible interpretation is that the Score Stone has been replaced by the Radiance Stone, swapped in place with analagous purpose. R1586/9 makes it pretty clear that an entity can have its name changed: A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since changed. And of course tells us that any other attributes can be changed as well: If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but with different attributes, then the second entity and its attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions. The question is hinged on whether the rules "[define] the [entity] both before and after the amendment". The rules do not give guidance on how we would know whether these are the same entity. What makes an entity? - Through inference of Rule 1586, it seems that legally speaking an entity is a specific collection of attributes. It's not clear whether an entity needs to have a name, but if it does then its name is unique but could be changed. Augmenting this with common sense, and the best interest of the game, I contend that not all attributes of an entity are equal. Clearly names are crucial, as they get special treatment by the rules. Depending on the entity, different attributes will be essential to its identity. For example, the power of a rule is less identifying and less unique than the name, number, or text of a rule. I also argue that there is one more important common sense feature of an entity: variously known as its personality, purpose, or identity. While the rules are largely silent on this, it seems to be implied by the re-enactment mechanism. Re-enactment has been used for rules with different titles and text than what they're re-enacting but a similar purpose, and in fact this seems to be considered preferable by players over a new rule, even tho the difference is purely semantic. So how do we know if two entities are the same entity? If they have the same name, they are by definition (R1586). Otherwise, they must share crucial attributes and a purp
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4017 Judged TRUE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4017 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4017 === snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. == Caller:G. Barred:snail Judge: ais523 Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by G.: 14 Mar 2023 19:11:01 Assigned to ais523: 19 Mar 2023 17:11:49 Judged TRUE by ais523:25 Mar 2023 21:43:41 == Caller's Arguments: When Proposal 8919 *started* taking effect, R2657 read in part: Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the associated amount of points, rounded down. Below is a list of scoring conditions and their associated points and officers. [...] * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (Assessor). When Proposal 8919 *finished* taking effect, R2657 read in part: Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated radiance. Below is a list of radiance conditions: [...] * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must specify proposal number) I think the "when" is triggered when the proposal *first* starts taking effect, so e earned the right to be awarded by the old system (which was then made impossible to give via rule change), but not the new system. A counterargument is that since the proposal is still "taking effect" when the new text came into being, that was awarded somehow too - but interpreting the trigger as continuous is a self-conflict with the first sentence of the rule that says "each time", which implies a specific single instant. Caller's Evidence: On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:46=E2=80=AFAM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > For the adoption of P8919, I gain 1 radiance (co-author). > > -- > snail Proposal 8919: // ID: 8919 Title: Radiance v1.1 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: nix Co-authors: G., 4st, snail [This proposal reskins points/score as "radiance" and also changes the scoring conditions to be cashed by players. IE, insteead of the assessor granting points for proposals, each player must claim them. Also introduce gains/grants language to get rid of clunkier things, and adds some requirements to specify your radiance when winning, and where you gained the radiance from when you do.] Retitle R2656 to "Radiance". Amend R2656 to read in full: A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0, tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that amount. Upon a correct announcement from a player that eir radiance is 100 or more (correctly specifying the amount), e wins the game. Then, eir radiance is set to 0, and all other players' radiance are set to half their current value rounded down. At the start of every quarter, all radiance switches are set to half their current value rounded down. For each player, set eir radiance switch to be equal to the value eir score switch was at immediately before this proposal was adopted. Retitle R2657 to "Gaining Radiance". Amend R2657 to read, in full: Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated radiance. Below is a list of radiance conditions: * Being the author of a proposal that takes effect: 5 (must specify proposal number) * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must specify proposal number) * Having an Agoran Birthday: X, where X is the number of active players during eir birthday. * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 2 (must specify CFJ number) Amend R2659 by replacing "increase eir own score by (X^2)-X points" with "gain (X^2)-X radiance" and replacing "increase eir own score by (X-1)*2 points" with "gain (X-1)*2 radiance". In R2670 replacing: The score of the player that has the most dollaries i
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4018 Assigned to nix
I recuse Murphy from Cfj 4018 and then assign it to nix (below is for reference, and is not intended to assign to Murphy) On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 10:12 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-official@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 4018. I assign it to Murphy. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4018 > > === CFJ 4018 === > > I currently own the Radiance stone. > > == > > Caller:snail > Barred:Janet > > Judge: Murphy > > == > > History: > > Called by snail: 15 Mar 2023 03:13:52 > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > Arguments for TRUE: > The Radiance stone is the same stone as the Score stone, just with > different attributes, and so falls under Rule 1586 (Definition and > Continuity of Entities): > > If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it > defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but > with different attributes, then the second entity and its > attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under > the new definitions. > > > Caller's Evidence: > > From adopted proposal 8919: > > Amend R2645 by replacing: > >- Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's > (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased > by 3. > > with: > >- Radiance Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player > (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) gains 3 radiance. > > > From Rule 2645 (The Stones): > > The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the > following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Smoothness): Description. > > > It seems like the different attributes that were changed are just the Stone > Name and Description, and common sense indicates they're the same stone. > > == >
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Wed 22 Mar 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4017 Assigned to ais523 Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:11:49 4018 Assigned to Murphy Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:12:25 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4013 G. 4015 Janet 4012 snail 4016 nix 4017 ais523 4018 Murphy OPEN CASES --- 4018 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:12:25] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone. 4017 Assigned to ais523 [Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:11:49] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4017 snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4016 Judged FALSE by nix [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4016 cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. 4015 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 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'. 4012 Judged TRUE by snail [Tue 14 Mar 2023] 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. 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. 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: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Sun 19 Mar 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4017 Assigned to ais523 Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:11:49 4018 Assigned to Murphy Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:12:25 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4013 G. 4015 Janet 4012 snail 4016 nix 4017 ais523 4018 Murphy OPEN CASES --- 4018 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:12:25] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone. 4017 Assigned to ais523 [Due Sun 26 Mar 2023 17:11:49] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4017 snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4016 Judged FALSE by nix [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4016 cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. 4015 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 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'. 4012 Judged TRUE by snail [Tue 14 Mar 2023] 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. 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. 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: [Arbitor] CFJ 4018 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4018. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4018 === CFJ 4018 === I currently own the Radiance stone. == Caller:snail Barred:Janet Judge: Murphy == History: Called by snail: 15 Mar 2023 03:13:52 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Arguments for TRUE: The Radiance stone is the same stone as the Score stone, just with different attributes, and so falls under Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities): If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but with different attributes, then the second entity and its attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions. Caller's Evidence: >From adopted proposal 8919: Amend R2645 by replacing: - Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased by 3. with: - Radiance Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) gains 3 radiance. >From Rule 2645 (The Stones): The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Smoothness): Description. It seems like the different attributes that were changed are just the Stone Name and Description, and common sense indicates they're the same stone. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4017 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4017. I assign it to ais523. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4017 === CFJ 4017 === snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. == Caller:G. Barred:snail Judge: ais523 == History: Called by G.: 14 Mar 2023 19:11:01 Assigned to ais523: [now] == Caller's Arguments: When Proposal 8919 *started* taking effect, R2657 read in part: Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the associated amount of points, rounded down. Below is a list of scoring conditions and their associated points and officers. [...] * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (Assessor). When Proposal 8919 *finished* taking effect, R2657 read in part: Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated radiance. Below is a list of radiance conditions: [...] * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must specify proposal number) I think the "when" is triggered when the proposal *first* starts taking effect, so e earned the right to be awarded by the old system (which was then made impossible to give via rule change), but not the new system. A counterargument is that since the proposal is still "taking effect" when the new text came into being, that was awarded somehow too - but interpreting the trigger as continuous is a self-conflict with the first sentence of the rule that says "each time", which implies a specific single instant. Caller's Evidence: On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:46=E2=80=AFAM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > For the adoption of P8919, I gain 1 radiance (co-author). > > -- > snail Proposal 8919: // ID: 8919 Title: Radiance v1.1 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: nix Co-authors: G., 4st, snail [This proposal reskins points/score as "radiance" and also changes the scoring conditions to be cashed by players. IE, insteead of the assessor granting points for proposals, each player must claim them. Also introduce gains/grants language to get rid of clunkier things, and adds some requirements to specify your radiance when winning, and where you gained the radiance from when you do.] Retitle R2656 to "Radiance". Amend R2656 to read in full: A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0, tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that amount. Upon a correct announcement from a player that eir radiance is 100 or more (correctly specifying the amount), e wins the game. Then, eir radiance is set to 0, and all other players' radiance are set to half their current value rounded down. At the start of every quarter, all radiance switches are set to half their current value rounded down. For each player, set eir radiance switch to be equal to the value eir score switch was at immediately before this proposal was adopted. Retitle R2657 to "Gaining Radiance". Amend R2657 to read, in full: Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated radiance. Below is a list of radiance conditions: * Being the author of a proposal that takes effect: 5 (must specify proposal number) * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must specify proposal number) * Having an Agoran Birthday: X, where X is the number of active players during eir birthday. * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 2 (must specify CFJ number) Amend R2659 by replacing "increase eir own score by (X^2)-X points" with "gain (X^2)-X radiance" and replacing "increase eir own score by (X-1)*2 points" with "gain (X-1)*2 radiance". In R2670 replacing: The score of the player that has the most dollaries is increased by 30. In the event of an N-way tie, instead, each tied player's score is increased by 30/N points, rounded dow
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4016 Judged FALSE by nix
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4016 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4016 === cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. == Caller:ais523 Judge: nix Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by ais523: 05 Mar 2023 20:40:06 Assigned to nix: 10 Mar 2023 20:56:52 Judged FALSE by nix: 12 Mar 2023 15:44:37 == 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? -- Judge nix's Arguments: I judge this CFJ FALSE. Arguments follow. The wording of the vote in question is "I vote FOR on all proposals.", and it was in reply to the thread with distribution of proposals 8914-8920. Cuddlybanana made no other acknowledgments of proposal 8911, even tho e could have voted separately on that distribution. "All" means "all", without other specifiers, so cuddlybanana specified *every* proposal, including many that are not available to vote on. It is doubtful to me that cuddlybanana intended to vote on every proposal that exists, but that's what eir statement seems to say. Additionally, even if I ignore that hitch, I truly cannot decide whether e intended to vote for just that set of proposals in the thread, or everything currently available to em. Both seem equally plausible with a blanket vote. There's historical precedent for players to, occasionally or frequently, vote the same way on every proposal, so it's certainly not unreasonable. But e did quote a specific distribution, so that interpretation is reasonable too. Rule 683 sets out requirements for a ballot, reproduced below with my own emphasis added: An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions: 1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision. 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the initiation of the decision, a player. **3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.** 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by the voting method. **5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the identified vote.** 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision. Is the matter clearly identified? Doubtful, there's multiple valid interpretations of the scope. Is the intent clear? I think not at all. Thus not only do I think this is not a ballot on 8911, I do not think this is a ballot at all, on any proposal. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4015 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4015 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4015 === This is a valid objection. == Caller:4st Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by 4st:01 Mar 2023 04:50:01 Assigned to Janet:03 Mar 2023 22:26:08 Motion to Extend filed: 10 Mar 2023 05:03:53 Judged FALSE by Janet:12 Mar 2023 03:21:56 == Caller's Evidence: On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:31 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 3:59 PM Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > > MAD ENGINEER'S WEEKLY REPORT > > > > The Device is off. > > > > > > EXPERIMENT 00074 INTENT TO INVENT > > > > I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend the Rule "The > > Device" by appending the following a a list item to the "When the device > > is on:" list: > > > > ... > > > > > I oppose this intent because it is not my suggestion. :) > Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: the intent is clear and unambiguous. (I think this is fairly clear, but Janet has issued a doubt without making a CFJ and it will come time to decide whether the intent passed or not eventually.) -- Judge Janet's Arguments: Objecting to an intent is a "by announcement" action. Therefore, to perform it, one must, "clearly and unambiguously", specify the action and set forth intent to perform it by sending the message. The possible ambiguity in this case is whether 4st could have meant "oppose" to mean that e was informally stating eir disapproval to the intent without formally objecting. In fact, a person who meant to do exactly that could quite plausibly have written the same thing that 4st did, and, for an unwary Agoran, it would be a much more natural way to write it than "I am against, but do not object to, this intent". I find that this is enough to create ambiguity with respect to whether intent to perform the action was set forth by sending the message. This causes the purported to fail. Having found that intent to perform the action of objecting was not set forth, I do not reach whether the action itself was sufficiently clearly specified. Judged FALSE. Judge Janet's Evidence: Rule 478/41 (Power=3) Fora Publicity is a secured forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: 1. e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and 2. if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public message is considered a public message in its own right. To "publish" or "announce" something is to send a public message whose body contains that thing. To do something "publicly" is to do that thing within a public message. Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by announcement", that person performs that action by, in a single public message, specifying the action and setting forth intent to perform that action by sending that message, doing both clearly and unambiguously. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. Allowing actions performed by sending a message to take place simultaneously must be done explicitly and is secured at power 2. Rule 2124/31 (Power=3) Performing Tabled Actions For a given tabled intent, a player CAN, unless otherwise forbidden by the rules or the document enabling the action, act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to: * Become a supporter ("support" it), unless e tabled or previously supported it; * Become an objector ("object to" it), unless e previously objected to i
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4012 Judged TRUE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4012 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4012 === The text of Rule 2486/1 (The Royal Parade), up to but not including "IN CELEBRATION", consists of multiple paragraphs. == Caller:G. Barred:Janet Judge: snail Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 20:07:07 Assigned to R. Lee: 21 Feb 2023 01:06:14 R. Lee Recused: 05 Mar 2023 21:57:38 Assigned to snail:05 Mar 2023 21:57:38 Judged TRUE by snail: 14 Mar 2023 18:32:25 == Caller's Evidence: The text in question (> quotes added) >_ > _\ /_ > >_X_< > .---._ /_\ _.---. > /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ >| / ___`{\_/}`___ \ | >\ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / > \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / > \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / > |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| > jgs |() () () () () ()| > <><>><> > `"""` Caller's Arguments: The cited text is ASCII art. Art is an attempt to communicate... something. For this type of communication, whitespace is clearly substantial, as the quoted text has a very different meaning and (I would argue) communicates something substantially different compared to: _ _\ /_ >_X_< .---._ /_\ _.---. /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ | / ___`{\_/}` ___ \ | \ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| jgs |() () () () () ()| <><>><> `"""` (this should be the same non-whitespace characters with whitespace reduced/formatted as wrapped rule text). If the rulekeepor were allowed to replace one with the other, that would be a substantial change of meaning. Rule 2429/1 (Bleach) reads: Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except for paragraph breaks. While CFJ 3542 stresses that paragraphs are elements of "prose not whitespace", it emphasizes this point in stating that it's the logical structure of the text that most readily determines paragraphs. In this situation, I argue that "logical structure" is replaced with "artistic structure" that comingles characters and whitespace in a precise manner, and that's what determines paragraph breaks in the rule in question. Therefore, in this rule, pretty much all the whitespace, and whitespace following whitespace, represent "significant" whitespace, and are therefore paragraph breaks. It might seem like a semantic irrelevance to determine if ASCII art has "paragraphs", but the purpose of this CFJ is not to allow a proposal to refer to parts of this art by paragraph (that's kind of silly and would be very hard to specify properly) but to determine whether the whitespace in that rule is "significant" in terms of the rulekeepor's ability to rearrange such rules. -- Judge snail's Arguments: I judge CFJ 4012 TRUE. Certain punctuation and other symbols, such as the "-" in front of a list item, may not be considered part of a paragraph, but in this case, each collection of symbols that make up a line have a meaning, being part of the ASCII art. I find that enough to make each line have it's own "logical structure" in addition to "artistic structure". Each paragraph combined may be readable as a whole, but that doesn't exclude each line from being its own paragraph, with a meaning "this is the first line of the ASCII art" and so on. ==
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 variation
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? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4012 Assigned to snail
I recuse R. Lee from CFJ 4012 for violating the time limit to judge (and remove em from the judges' list pending response as per R2492p3). I assign CFJ 4012 to snail. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4012 === CFJ 4012 === The text of Rule 2486/1 (The Royal Parade), up to but not including "IN CELEBRATION", consists of multiple paragraphs. == Caller:G. Barred:Janet Judge: snail == History: Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 20:07:07 Assigned to R. Lee: 21 Feb 2023 01:06:14 R. Lee Recused: [Now] Assigned to snail: [Now] == Caller's Evidence: The text in question (> quotes added) >_ > _\ /_ > >_X_< > .---._ /_\ _.---. > /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ >| / ___`{\_/}`___ \ | >\ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / > \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / > \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / > |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| > jgs |() () () () () ()| > <><>><> > `"""` Caller's Arguments: The cited text is ASCII art. Art is an attempt to communicate... something. For this type of communication, whitespace is clearly substantial, as the quoted text has a very different meaning and (I would argue) communicates something substantially different compared to: _ _\ /_ >_X_< .---._ /_\ _.---. /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ | / ___`{\_/}` ___ \ | \ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| jgs |() () () () () ()| <><>><> `"""` (this should be the same non-whitespace characters with whitespace reduced/formatted as wrapped rule text). If the rulekeepor were allowed to replace one with the other, that would be a substantial change of meaning. Rule 2429/1 (Bleach) reads: Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except for paragraph breaks. While CFJ 3542 stresses that paragraphs are elements of "prose not whitespace", it emphasizes this point in stating that it's the logical structure of the text that most readily determines paragraphs. In this situation, I argue that "logical structure" is replaced with "artistic structure" that comingles characters and whitespace in a precise manner, and that's what determines paragraph breaks in the rule in question. Therefore, in this rule, pretty much all the whitespace, and whitespace following whitespace, represent "significant" whitespace, and are therefore paragraph breaks. It might seem like a semantic irrelevance to determine if ASCII art has "paragraphs", but the purpose of this CFJ is not to allow a proposal to refer to parts of this art by paragraph (that's kind of silly and would be very hard to specify properly) but to determine whether the whitespace in that rule is "significant" in terms of the rulekeepor's ability to rearrange such rules. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 03 Mar 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4012 Assigned to R. Lee OVERDUE Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:14 4014 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:25:36 4015 Assigned to Janet Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:26:08 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4010 ais523 4011 snail 4012 R. Lee 4013 G. 4014 Murphy 4015 Janet OPEN CASES --- [Note: there may be an open and unassigned CFJ with a duplicate text to CFJ 4015]. 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. 4014 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:25:36] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4014 Rule 2643 contains the text 'A stone is immune if and only if'. 4012 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:14] 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 --- 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. 4004 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sat 04 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4004 I now own and control a Device.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4015 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4015. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4015 === CFJ 4015 === This is a valid objection. == Caller:4st Judge: Janet == History: Called by 4st:01 Mar 2023 04:50:01 Assigned to Janet:[now] == Caller's Evidence: On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:31 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 3:59 PM Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > > MAD ENGINEER'S WEEKLY REPORT > > > > The Device is off. > > > > > > EXPERIMENT 00074 INTENT TO INVENT > > > > I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend the Rule "The > > Device" by appending the following a a list item to the "When the device > > is on:" list: > > > > ... > > > > > I oppose this intent because it is not my suggestion. :) > Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: the intent is clear and unambiguous. (I think this is fairly clear, but Janet has issued a doubt without making a CFJ and it will come time to decide whether the intent passed or not eventually.) ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4014 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4014. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4014 === CFJ 4014 === Rule 2643 contains the text 'A stone is immune if and only if'. == Caller:Janet Judge: Murphy == History: Called by Janet: 28 Feb 2023 01:47:43 Assigned to Murphy:: [now] == 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 variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4013 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4013 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4013 === Janet is party to at least one contract whose title begins with 'Riemann is'. == Caller:Janet Barred:snail Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Janet: 20 Feb 2023 01:11:06 Assigned to G.: 21 Feb 2023 01:06:43 Judged FALSE by G.: 23 Feb 2023 14:57:47 == Caller's Arguments: I see a few possibilities: * Each purported consent is unclear due to having an indeterminate condition attached, so 0 contracts were created. * Exactly one purported consent worked, based on whether the Riemann hypothesis is true or false, so 1 contract was created. * Both purported consents work, as the conditional doesn't affect whether consent was given, so 2 contracts were created. The applicable clause of Rule 2519/2 is item 1. This item does not include any clarity standards for consenting, and it does not explicitly mention conditionals. We could potentially read the same standard as "by announcement" into "publicly stated" in order to make the purported consents fail. Similarly, the rule could be read to make purported conditional consents consent unconditionally, as I may have "publicly stated" my consent, even if I attempted to hedge it, thus making both consents work. Rule 1742/23 also does not place any clarity standards on the creation of contracts (other than "publicly"). Paragraph 3 does not apply because, of the zero or more contracts that exist, their text is fully public and well-specified (even if their existence is not). So I think this comes down entirely to which purported consents work, rather than the consents involving contracts specifically. Caller's Evidence: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:11 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I consent to, create, and join the > following contract entitled "Riemann is True": > > { > > Well, I guess that's not particularly surprising. > > Only Janet can be a party to this contract; if any other person is a > party, e immediately ceases to be. > > } > > > If the Riemann Hypothesis is false, I consent to, create, and join the > following contract entitled "Riemann is False": > > { > > Wow! That's amazing! > > Only Janet can be a party to this contract; if any other person is a > party, e immediately ceases to be. > > } > Rule 2519/2 (Power=3) Consent A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if, at the time the action took place: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement; 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously indicates eir consent; 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place. Rule 1742/23 (Power=2.5) Contracts Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without eir consent. Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or between the contract and the rules. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect. The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted with reference only to information that is either publicly or generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the provisions are known as the annex. A party to a cont
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4011 Judged TRUE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4011 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4011 === There are different types of devices described or defined in R2654 which do not refer to the device switch defined in R2655. == Caller:G. Barred:ais523 Judge: snail Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 15:28:01 Assigned to snail:21 Feb 2023 01:05:43 Judged TRUE by snail: 01 Mar 2023 05:52:41 == Caller's Arguments: In CFJ 3941, I judged: > First, to be clear, The Device switch and The Device rule are not > "devices" by virtue of their names alone. In CFJ 4004, Judge ais523 wrote: > In order to resolve this CFJ, we need to be clear on what a device > actually is. Rule 2654 has somehow managed to avoid defining it. > However, rule 2655 does contain a definition: "The device is a > singleton switch with values off (default) and on." Neither judgement examined too deeply whether the explicit definition of the device switch in R2655 contradicts the various properties of "devices" defined in R2654 (e.g. switches aren't platinum). To elaborate my CFJ 3941 arguments a bit, I think the various definitional statements in R2654 describe different types of devices and therefore define them in a way distinct from the switch. In some circumstances, definitions can be operational ("a platinum device") without saying "a device is platinum" directly. But the main purpose of this cfj is to look at the conflict between the two judgements, so I'm not arguing too strongly for either side, mainly trying to resolve the conflict. -- Judge snail's Arguments: I will first uphold the judgement of CFJ 3941, "the device" is not necessarily a device. Imagine if there was another switch called "The CFJ", it wouldn't be a CFJ just because of its name. So the question is, what about the judgement of CFJ 4004 needs to change? It begins with this assumption and bases most of its arguments off of it, so practically the whole judgement needs rethinking, though its conclusion may be the same. Since "the device" and "a device" are different classes of entities, I find that enough to simply judge CFJ 4011 TRUE. Rule 2654 (The Device) describes a few different kinds of devices: Agoran devices, random devices, welcome devices. I wouldn't go so far to say it "defines" them, though. It describes the properties of the different kinds of devices, and also of the device itself, as if they were defined elsewhere. The device is defined elsewhere, but devices seem to have no definition, at least while the device is off. There are plenty of definitions while the device is on, though. This likely functions similarly to the definition of something such as a stamp being repealed and reenacted: devices don't exist while they aren't defined, so CFJ 4004's judgement seems to be correct. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4010 Judged FALSE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4010 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4010 === The mentioned replacement in proposal 8898 was effectively applied. == Caller:snail Judge: ais523 Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by snail: 19 Feb 2023 05:12:47 Assigned to ais523: 21 Feb 2023 01:05:11 Judged FALSE by ais523: 27 Feb 2023 17:11:13 == Caller's Evidence: > On Feb 18, 2023, at 10:40 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > In proposal 8898: > >> Amend R2675 (Dream of Wandering) by replacing the paragraph that starts >> with "- Gardens" with: >> >> - Gardens: Immediately after a wandering, the Base Rockiness of each >>Gardens Dreamer is increased by 1. > > > The text to replace is a list item, not a paragraph. I am interpreting > this as not being applied. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason Caller's Arguments: Light arguments for TRUE: a list item is a type of paragraph, and there's nothing else the term "paragraph that starts with '- Gardens'" could refer to. -- Gratuitous Arguments by Jason: I believe we've generally held that list items are either parts of paragraphs or a separate thing, rather than being paragraphs themselves (even if formatted as such). Also, "it can't possibly mean anything else" isn't enough, given that we've rejected things like "Amend Rule /R", even though that couldn't possibly mean anything else. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: CFJ 3778 found that list items could have whole line breaks inserted between them and removed because they were not significant. This is not true with paragraphs. If the section of text with ' - Gardens" is taken to begin a paragraph, and is followed by additional list items where the whitespace could be removed, the replaced paragraph would include all of those line items. Or at least it is unclear where the paragraph ends. Additional CFJ to consider - In CFJ 3451, Judge Tiger explicitly finds that the R105 standard is even stricter than "everyone knows what was meant and there's only one reasonable interpretation" (maybe R105 should be weakened a tad, but that would be a legislative not judicial correction): Judge Tiger wrote: > By the natural-language interpretation of ambiguity alone, I would deem > that using the wrong ID, which is not used by any other rule, and the > correct title, is clear enough. Ambiguity implies multiple potential > meanings. There is no sensible way for the "incorrect" number 2455 to be > an indication of another meaning, or an attempt at obfuscation of the > proposal's effect, when there is no rule 2455 but there is a 2445. I > deem this case to not fall under the precedent of CFJ 1625. > > However, the second sentence of the paragraph specifies that any > variation, other than "inconsequential variation in the quotation of a > rule", constitutes ambiguity. I take this to be an extra safety measure: > even if, as in this case, the intended meaning was never really > ambiguous to us (to me), the rules require a higher standard of clarity. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3451 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3778 -- Additional discussion in DIS: snail wrote: > Looking at this CFJ (3778), it seems to say the opposite about line > breaks within a paragraph: > > CFJ 3452 ruled that paragraph boundaries should be determined based mainly > on grammatical structure rather than layout. Following its reasoning, "A" > above would all be considered a single paragraph, since it's a single > grammatical sentence; therefore, there are no "paragraph breaks" to > contend with and the changes *[inserting whole line breaks within a > paragraph]* are definitely insignificant. > > Grammatically, each list item looks to be its own paragraph. The list > items following the "- Gardens" list item are not able to have all of > their whitespace removed, as this would contradict CFJ 3778: "[there > is] a prohibition on merging or splitting paragraphs". > > If there was any ambiguity of whether the list items are all part of > one paragraph, or each their own paragraph, the proposal resolves that > ambiguity by referring to one of the list items as a paragraph. G. wrote: > Interestingly, this argument had the opposite
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Tue 21 Feb 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4010 Assigned to ais523 Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:05:11 4011 Assigned to snail Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:05:43 4012 Assigned to R. Lee Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:14 4013 Assigned to G. Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:43 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4006 Janet 4009 Murphy 4010 ais523 4011 snail 4012 R. Lee 4013 G. OPEN CASES --- 4013 Assigned to G. [Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:43] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4013 Janet is party to at least one contract whose title begins with 'Riemann is'. 4012 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:14] 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. 4011 Assigned to snail [Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:05:43] 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 Assigned to ais523 [Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:05:11] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4010 The mentioned replacement in proposal 8898 was effectively applied. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 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. 4004 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sat 04 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4004 I now own and control a Device. 4003 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 22 Jan 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4003 I won the game in this message. 4002 Judged TRUE by snail [Sun 22 Jan 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4002 Destructor is part of Cannon's pull.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4013 Assigned to G.
The below CFJ is 4013. I assign it to G.. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4013 === CFJ 4013 === Janet is party to at least one contract whose title begins with 'Riemann is'. == Caller:Janet Barred:snail Judge: G. == History: Called by Janet: 20 Feb 2023 01:11:06 Assigned to G.: [now] == Caller's Arguments: I see a few possibilities: * Each purported consent is unclear due to having an indeterminate condition attached, so 0 contracts were created. * Exactly one purported consent worked, based on whether the Riemann hypothesis is true or false, so 1 contract was created. * Both purported consents work, as the conditional doesn't affect whether consent was given, so 2 contracts were created. The applicable clause of Rule 2519/2 is item 1. This item does not include any clarity standards for consenting, and it does not explicitly mention conditionals. We could potentially read the same standard as "by announcement" into "publicly stated" in order to make the purported consents fail. Similarly, the rule could be read to make purported conditional consents consent unconditionally, as I may have "publicly stated" my consent, even if I attempted to hedge it, thus making both consents work. Rule 1742/23 also does not place any clarity standards on the creation of contracts (other than "publicly"). Paragraph 3 does not apply because, of the zero or more contracts that exist, their text is fully public and well-specified (even if their existence is not). So I think this comes down entirely to which purported consents work, rather than the consents involving contracts specifically. Caller's Evidence: On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:11 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I consent to, create, and join the > following contract entitled "Riemann is True": > > { > > Well, I guess that's not particularly surprising. > > Only Janet can be a party to this contract; if any other person is a > party, e immediately ceases to be. > > } > > > If the Riemann Hypothesis is false, I consent to, create, and join the > following contract entitled "Riemann is False": > > { > > Wow! That's amazing! > > Only Janet can be a party to this contract; if any other person is a > party, e immediately ceases to be. > > } > Rule 2519/2 (Power=3) Consent A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if, at the time the action took place: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement; 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and unambiguously indicates eir consent; 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to take place or assented to it taking place. Rule 1742/23 (Power=2.5) Contracts Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a person to become a party to a contract without eir consent. Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or between the contract and the rules. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect. The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted with reference only to information that is either publicly or generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the provisions are known as the annex. A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body: * Act on behalf of ano
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4012 Assigned to R. Lee
The below CFJ is 4012. I assign it to R. Lee. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4012 === CFJ 4012 === The text of Rule 2486/1 (The Royal Parade), up to but not including "IN CELEBRATION", consists of multiple paragraphs. == Caller:G. Barred:Janet Judge: R. Lee == History: Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 20:07:07 Assigned to R. Lee: [now] == Caller's Evidence: The text in question (> quotes added) >_ > _\ /_ > >_X_< > .---._ /_\ _.---. > /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ >| / ___`{\_/}`___ \ | >\ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / > \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / > \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / > |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| > jgs |() () () () () ()| > <><>><> > `"""` Caller's Arguments: The cited text is ASCII art. Art is an attempt to communicate... something. For this type of communication, whitespace is clearly substantial, as the quoted text has a very different meaning and (I would argue) communicates something substantially different compared to: _ _\ /_ >_X_< .---._ /_\ _.---. /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ | / ___`{\_/}` ___ \ | \ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| jgs |() () () () () ()| <><>><> `"""` (this should be the same non-whitespace characters with whitespace reduced/formatted as wrapped rule text). If the rulekeepor were allowed to replace one with the other, that would be a substantial change of meaning. Rule 2429/1 (Bleach) reads: Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except for paragraph breaks. While CFJ 3542 stresses that paragraphs are elements of "prose not whitespace", it emphasizes this point in stating that it's the logical structure of the text that most readily determines paragraphs. In this situation, I argue that "logical structure" is replaced with "artistic structure" that comingles characters and whitespace in a precise manner, and that's what determines paragraph breaks in the rule in question. Therefore, in this rule, pretty much all the whitespace, and whitespace following whitespace, represent "significant" whitespace, and are therefore paragraph breaks. It might seem like a semantic irrelevance to determine if ASCII art has "paragraphs", but the purpose of this CFJ is not to allow a proposal to refer to parts of this art by paragraph (that's kind of silly and would be very hard to specify properly) but to determine whether the whitespace in that rule is "significant" in terms of the rulekeepor's ability to rearrange such rules. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4011 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4011. I assign it to snail. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4011 === CFJ 4011 === There are different types of devices described or defined in R2654 which do not refer to the device switch defined in R2655. == Caller:G. Barred:ais523 Judge: snail == History: Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 15:28:01 Assigned to snail:[now] == Caller's Arguments: In CFJ 3941, I judged: > First, to be clear, The Device switch and The Device rule are not > "devices" by virtue of their names alone. In CFJ 4004, Judge ais523 wrote: > In order to resolve this CFJ, we need to be clear on what a device > actually is. Rule 2654 has somehow managed to avoid defining it. > However, rule 2655 does contain a definition: "The device is a > singleton switch with values off (default) and on." Neither judgement examined too deeply whether the explicit definition of the device switch in R2655 contradicts the various properties of "devices" defined in R2654 (e.g. switches aren't platinum). To elaborate my CFJ 3941 arguments a bit, I think the various definitional statements in R2654 describe different types of devices and therefore define them in a way distinct from the switch. In some circumstances, definitions can be operational ("a platinum device") without saying "a device is platinum" directly. But the main purpose of this cfj is to look at the conflict between the two judgements, so I'm not arguing too strongly for either side, mainly trying to resolve the conflict. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4010 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4010. I assign it to ais523. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4010 === CFJ 4010 === The mentioned replacement in proposal 8898 was effectively applied. == Caller:snail Judge: ais523 == History: Called by snail: 19 Feb 2023 05:12:47 Assigned to ais523: [now] == Caller's Evidence: > On Feb 18, 2023, at 10:40 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > In proposal 8898: > >> Amend R2675 (Dream of Wandering) by replacing the paragraph that starts >> with "- Gardens" with: >> >> - Gardens: Immediately after a wandering, the Base Rockiness of each >>Gardens Dreamer is increased by 1. > > > The text to replace is a list item, not a paragraph. I am interpreting > this as not being applied. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason Caller's Arguments: Light arguments for TRUE: a list item is a type of paragraph, and there's nothing else the term "paragraph that starts with '- Gardens'" could refer to. -- Gratuitous Arguments by Jason: I believe we've generally held that list items are either parts of paragraphs or a separate thing, rather than being paragraphs themselves (even if formatted as such). Also, "it can't possibly mean anything else" isn't enough, given that we've rejected things like "Amend Rule /R", even though that couldn't possibly mean anything else. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: CFJ 3778 found that list items could have whole line breaks inserted between them and removed because they were not significant. This is not true with paragraphs. If the section of text with ' - Gardens" is taken to begin a paragraph, and is followed by additional list items where the whitespace could be removed, the replaced paragraph would include all of those line items. Or at least it is unclear where the paragraph ends. Additional CFJ to consider - In CFJ 3451, Judge Tiger explicitly finds that the R105 standard is even stricter than "everyone knows what was meant and there's only one reasonable interpretation" (maybe R105 should be weakened a tad, but that would be a legislative not judicial correction): Judge Tiger wrote: > By the natural-language interpretation of ambiguity alone, I would deem > that using the wrong ID, which is not used by any other rule, and the > correct title, is clear enough. Ambiguity implies multiple potential > meanings. There is no sensible way for the "incorrect" number 2455 to be > an indication of another meaning, or an attempt at obfuscation of the > proposal's effect, when there is no rule 2455 but there is a 2445. I > deem this case to not fall under the precedent of CFJ 1625. > > However, the second sentence of the paragraph specifies that any > variation, other than "inconsequential variation in the quotation of a > rule", constitutes ambiguity. I take this to be an extra safety measure: > even if, as in this case, the intended meaning was never really > ambiguous to us (to me), the rules require a higher standard of clarity. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3451 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3778 -- Additional discussion in DIS: snail wrote: > Looking at this CFJ (3778), it seems to say the opposite about line > breaks within a paragraph: > > CFJ 3452 ruled that paragraph boundaries should be determined based mainly > on grammatical structure rather than layout. Following its reasoning, "A" > above would all be considered a single paragraph, since it's a single > grammatical sentence; therefore, there are no "paragraph breaks" to > contend with and the changes *[inserting whole line breaks within a > paragraph]* are definitely insignificant. > > Grammatically, each list item looks to be its own paragraph. The list > items following the "- Gardens" list item are not able to have all of > their whitespace removed, as this would contradict CFJ 3778: "[there > is] a prohibition on merging or splitting paragraphs". > > If there was any ambiguity of whether the list items are all part of > one paragraph, or each their own paragraph, the proposal resolves that > ambiguity by referring to one of the list items as a paragraph. G. wrote: > Interestingly, this argument had the opposite effect on me. Before > you said it, I thought "we've all agreed these are list items not > paragraphs, the question is whether a proposal mis