OFF: [deputy-Arbitor] CFJ 3934 assigned to ais523

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I temporarily deputize for the Arbitor to assign the below CFJ the number
#3934 and assign to ais523 to judge.

 Forwarded Message 

Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 12:09:00 -0400
Caller: R. Lee

I CFJ: Falsifian gained White Glitter.

On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 12:03 PM Falsifian via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I award myself White Glitter.
>
> Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require
> me to own the ribbon:
>
> If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e
> corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
> qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five
> or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em
> that type of Glitter by announcement.
>
> I certainly did not "qualify" for White Glitter, since that requires
> owning a White Ribbon, but the above text doesn't talk about
> qualifying for a type of Glitter.
>
> I think I successfully awarded myself White Glitter. I think theonly
> question is whether I've "gained" White Glitter, since only then CAN
> and SHALL the Tailor reward me:
>
> When a player gains a type of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL ...
>
> Thanks to nix on IRC/Discord for the idea of White Glitter. I think the
> same should apply for any other kind of ribbon: if this works, you can
> always get glitter before your first ribbon.
>
> --
> Falsifian
>

OFF: [Referee] Weekly

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

--
 GO TO JAIL
 (Referee's Weekly Report)
--
Date of this report: 22 October 2021
Date of last report: 17 October 2021
(all times UTC)


BLOT HOLDINGS   (self-ratifies)
==
 Blots  Person
 -  -
 1  Trigon
 2  R. Lee
 2  Madrid[*]
 1  Cuddlybanana
 2  Shy Owl

[*] Formerly known as Cuddlebeam


BLOT HISTORY   (does not self-ratify)
==
PersonChange   DateReason
  ---  --  -
TIME OF LAST REPORT
Shy Owl+2  2021-10-05  "For breaking above pledge"
Telna  -1  2021-09-19  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Telna  +1  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
Trigon -1  2021-09-19  Expunged by Telna w/ 1 Blot-B-Gone
Cuddlebeam +2  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
Trigon +2  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
G. -2  2021-09-18  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
R. Lee +2  2021-09-18  Trigon using Unofficial Injustice
G. +2  2021-09-18  R. Lee using Unofficial Injustice
Aspen  -2  2021-09-01  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Trigon -1  2021-09-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
R. Lee -1  2021-08-25  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Aspen  +1  2021-08-16  Tardiness (Promotor weekly)
R. Lee +1  2021-08-09  Created in own possession
Trigon +1  2021-08-02  Tardiness (Treasuror weekly)
Gaelan -2  2021-07-05  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Aspen  +1  2021-07-04  Tardiness (Registrar weekly)
Shelvacu   -1  2021-07-01  Fugitives' blots decay
R. Lee -2  2021-06-28  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Gaelan +2 (f)  2021-06-22  Tardiness (Referee weekly)
ATMunn -2  2021-06-20  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Trigon -2  2021-06-20  Expunged with 2-Blot-B-Gones
Trigon +1  2021-06-17  Not tracking Treasuror info
Trigon +1  2021-06-17  Not tracking Treasuror info
ATMunn +2  2021-06-17  Tardiness (Notary)
R. Lee -5  2021-06-07  Expunged by Jason with 5 Blot-B-Gones
Cuddlebeam -1  2021-06-04  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2021-05-10  Apology
Falsifian  +1 (f)  2021-05-07  Tardiness (Agoran Press Editor
   report)
G. -1  2020-04-11  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
nix+1 (f)  2021-04-04  Tardiness (Webmastor report)
G. +1 (f)  2021-04-04  Tardiness (humiliating public
reminder for indictment 002-A)
Cuddlebeam +1  2021-02-06  Unjustified Gesticulation
R. Lee -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
R. Lee -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
omd-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
omd-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
nix-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-18  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-18  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
G. -1  2021-01-14  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
G. -1  2021-01-14  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan +3 (f)  2021-01-03  Breach of Contract
G. +2  2020-12-13  Tardiness (Cooper)
nix+1  2020-12-13  Tardiness (Webmastor)
R. Lee -72 2020-12-01  Expunged by Proposal 8525
Falsifian  +1  2020-11-08  Tardiness (Registrar)
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2020-10-21  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2020-10-21  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon +2 (f)  2020-10-11  Tardiness (Trigon)
nix-1  2020-10-01  Expunged by Jason with 1 Blot-B-Gone
ATMunn -1  2020-10-01  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Shelvacu   +2 (f)  2020-09-27  Tardiness (CFJ 3884)
G. -2  2020-09-13  Apology
Falsifian  +2  2020-09-13  Missed report (Registrar)
G. +2 

OFF: [Referee] Weekly

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

--
 GO TO JAIL
 (Referee's Weekly Report)
--
Date of this report: 17 October 2021
Date of last report: 06 October 2021
(all times UTC)


BLOT HOLDINGS   (self-ratifies)

==
 Blots  Player
 -  -
 1  Trigon
 2  R. Lee
 2  Cuddlebeam
 1  Cuddlybanana
 2  Shy Owl

 Blots  Fugitive
 -  
 (none)


PENDING FINGERS  (does not self-ratify)
==
none

AVAILABLE FORGIVENESS   (does not self-ratify)
==
None


BLOT HISTORY   (does not self-ratify)

==
PersonChange   DateReason
  ---  --  -
TIME OF LAST REPORT
Fickle Owl +2  2021-10-05  "For breaking above pledge"
Telna  -1  2021-09-19  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Telna  +1  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
Trigon -1  2021-09-19  Expunged by Telna w/ 1 Blot-B-Gone
Cuddlebeam +2  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
Trigon +2  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
G. -2  2021-09-18  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
R. Lee +2  2021-09-18  Trigon using Unofficial Injustice
G. +2  2021-09-18  R. Lee using Unofficial Injustice
Aspen  -2  2021-09-01  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Trigon -1  2021-09-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
R. Lee -1  2021-08-25  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Aspen  +1  2021-08-16  Tardiness (Promotor weekly)
R. Lee +1  2021-08-09  Created in own possession
Trigon +1  2021-08-02  Tardiness (Treasuror weekly)
Gaelan -2  2021-07-05  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Aspen  +1  2021-07-04  Tardiness (Registrar weekly)
Shelvacu   -1  2021-07-01  Fugitives' blots decay
R. Lee -2  2021-06-28  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Gaelan +2 (f)  2021-06-22  Tardiness (Referee weekly)
ATMunn -2  2021-06-20  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Trigon -2  2021-06-20  Expunged with 2-Blot-B-Gones
Trigon +1  2021-06-17  Not tracking Treasuror info
Trigon +1  2021-06-17  Not tracking Treasuror info
ATMunn +2  2021-06-17  Tardiness (Notary)
R. Lee -5  2021-06-07  Expunged by Jason with 5 Blot-B-Gones
Cuddlebeam -1  2021-06-04  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2021-05-10  Apology
Falsifian  +1 (f)  2021-05-07  Tardiness (Agoran Press Editor
   report)
G. -1  2020-04-11  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
nix+1 (f)  2021-04-04  Tardiness (Webmastor report)
G. +1 (f)  2021-04-04  Tardiness (humiliating public
reminder for indictment 002-A)
Cuddlebeam +1  2021-02-06  Unjustified Gesticulation
R. Lee -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
R. Lee -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
omd-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
omd-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
nix-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-18  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-18  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
G. -1  2021-01-14  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
G. -1  2021-01-14  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan +3 (f)  2021-01-03  Breach of Contract
G. +2  2020-12-13  Tardiness (Cooper)
nix+1  2020-12-13  Tardiness (Webmastor)
R. Lee -72 2020-12-01  Expunged by Proposal 8525
Falsifian  +1  2020-11-08  Tardiness (Registrar)
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2020-11-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2020-10-21  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2020-10-21  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon +2 (f)  2020-10-11  Tardiness (Trigon)
nix-1  

OFF: [Tracker of the Device] Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

> Replicants are like any other machine, They're either a benefit or a
> hazard. If they're a benefit it's not my problem.
> - Rick Deckard, Blade Runner

---

  Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

   October 17, 2021

  The Device is: Off

---

Device Uptime Log (UTC)

  30 Aug 2021 20:03:28  Initialized to off
  10 Sep 2021 00:20:28  Switched on after  10.17847 days off
  06 Oct 2021 11:41:24  Switched off after 26.47287 days on
  now (approx.)11.43days off

Uptime: 55%

OFF: [Tracker of the Device] Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

> I know Now Why You Cry, But It’s Something I Can Never Do.
> ― The Terminator

---

  Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

   October 10, 2021

  The Device is: Off

---

Device Uptime Log (UTC)

  30 Aug 2021 20:03:28  Initialized to off
  10 Sep 2021 00:20:28  Switched on after  10.17847 days off
  06 Oct 2021 11:41:24  Switched off after 26.47287 days on
  now (approx.) 4.470   days off

Uptime: 64%

OFF: [deputy-Referee] Weekly

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I deputize for the referee to publish the below weekly report. -G.

--
 GO TO JAIL
 (Referee's Weekly Report)
--
Date of this report: 06 October 2021
Date of last report: 19 September 2021
(all times UTC)


BLOT HOLDINGS   (self-ratifies)

==
 Blots  Player
 -  -
 1  Trigon
 2  R. Lee
 2  Cuddlebeam
 1  Cuddlybanana
 2  Fickle Owl

 Blots  Fugitive
 -  
 (none)


PENDING FINGERS  (does not self-ratify)
==
ais523 22-Sep
"I point my finger at Cuddlebeam for violating rule 1742 by failing to
act in accordance with the contract "Jumblebeam Deal". Specifically, e
transferred eir last Victory Card, despite previously having been
granted a Victory Card by the Ministor via Rule 2624, and Jumble not
yet having transferred it to emself."

Cuddlebeam 06-Oct
"I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal"
in that I SHALL NOT Flip my Focus except as it states."

Cuddlebeam 06-Oct
"I Point my Finger at myself, Cuddlebeam, for violating "Jumblebeam Deal"
in that I SHALL NOT grant my Focus Grant except as it states."



AVAILABLE FORGIVENESS   (does not self-ratify)

==
None


BLOT HISTORY   (does not self-ratify)

==
PersonChange   DateReason
  ---  --  -
Fickle Owl +2  2021-10-05  "For breaking above pledge"
Telna  -1  2021-09-19  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Telna  +1  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
Trigon -1  2021-09-19  Expunged by Telna w/ 1 Blot-B-Gone
Cuddlebeam +2  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
Trigon +2  2021-09-19  Telna using Unofficial Injustice
G. -2  2021-09-18  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
R. Lee +2  2021-09-18  Trigon using Unofficial Injustice
G. +2  2021-09-18  R. Lee using Unofficial Injustice
DATE OF LAST REPORT2021-09-10
Aspen  -2  2021-09-01  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Trigon -1  2021-09-01  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
R. Lee -1  2021-08-25  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Aspen  +1  2021-08-16  Tardiness (Promotor weekly)
R. Lee +1  2021-08-09  Created in own possession
Trigon +1  2021-08-02  Tardiness (Treasuror weekly)
Gaelan -2  2021-07-05  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Aspen  +1  2021-07-04  Tardiness (Registrar weekly)
Shelvacu   -1  2021-07-01  Fugitives' blots decay
R. Lee -2  2021-06-28  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Gaelan +2 (f)  2021-06-22  Tardiness (Referee weekly)
ATMunn -2  2021-06-20  Expunged with 2 Blot-B-Gones
Trigon -2  2021-06-20  Expunged with 2-Blot-B-Gones
Trigon +1  2021-06-17  Not tracking Treasuror info
Trigon +1  2021-06-17  Not tracking Treasuror info
ATMunn +2  2021-06-17  Tardiness (Notary)
R. Lee -5  2021-06-07  Expunged by Jason with 5 Blot-B-Gones
Cuddlebeam -1  2021-06-04  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2021-05-10  Apology
Falsifian  +1 (f)  2021-05-07  Tardiness (Agoran Press Editor
   report)
G. -1  2020-04-11  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
nix+1 (f)  2021-04-04  Tardiness (Webmastor report)
G. +1 (f)  2021-04-04  Tardiness (humiliating public
reminder for indictment 002-A)
Cuddlebeam +1  2021-02-06  Unjustified Gesticulation
R. Lee -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
R. Lee -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
omd-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Trigon -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
omd-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Falsifian  -1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
nix-1  2021-01-20  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-18  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan -1  2021-01-18  Expunged by G. with 1 Blot-B-Gone
G. -1  2021-01-14  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
G. -1  2021-01-14  Expunged with 1 Blot-B-Gone
Gaelan +3 (f)  

OFF: [Ministor] Foci

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Ministor's Monthly Report for 06-Oct-21


Focus Switches

Compliance (2): Telna, G.

Legacy (5): ATMunn, Falsifian, Trigon, cuddlybanana, nix

Legislation (4): Aris, Gaelan, ais523, Jason

Participation (2): Murphy, Cuddlebeam

Unfocused (default): All other active players

[Inactive/nonplayers do not have this switch]



Planning History
-
18-Sep  Cuddlebeam   Legacy -> Participation
18-Sep  R. Lee   Compliance -> Legislation (deregistered)
20-Sep  Jason   Legislation -> Legislation
29-Sep  G.  Legislation -> Compliance
 1-Oct  (Above Plans Set)

OFF: [Tracker of the Device] Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

> You are my creator, but I am your master; Obey!
> ― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein

---

Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

 October 3, 2021

The Device is: On

---

OFF: [Tracker of the Device] Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

> I am the Golux, the only Golux in the world and not a mere device.
> ― James Thurber 

---

Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

September 26, 2021

The Device is: On


Current Device text (non-authorative)

  When the device is on:
* click - hummm
* The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device,
  together with the following week, is a Holiday.

  When the device is off:
* whirr - THUNK
* By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact,
  amend, or repeal a regulation for which e is the
  Promulgator.


History:
30 Aug 2021 20:03:28  Created by Proposal 8599
04 Sep 2021 18:44:13  #1 On Clause starting "The week that" added.
10 Sep 2021 00:20:28  Flipped on by G.
19 Sep 2021 16:00:29  #2 Off Clause starting "By default, a device" added.

---

OFF: [Tracker of the Device] Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

> A computer is a great device because it enables you to do anything which
> is automatic, anything that you don't need your understanding for.
> Understanding is outside a computer. It doesn't understand.
> - Roger Penrose

---

Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

September 19, 2021

The Device is: On


Current Device text (non-authorative)

  When the device is on:
* click - hummm
* The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device,
  together with the following week, is a Holiday.

  When the device is off:
* whirr - THUNK
* By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact,
  amend, or repeal a regulation for which e is the
  Promulgator.


History:
30 Aug 2021 20:03:28  Created by Proposal 8599
04 Sep 2021 18:44:13  #1 On Clause starting "The week that" added.
10 Sep 2021 00:20:28  Flipped on by G.
19 Sep 2021 16:00:29  #2 Off Clause starting "By default, a device" added.

---

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Weekly intent (#3)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

(@AdoP this constitutes the ME's weekly report)

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend Rule 2654, by
appending the following list item to the "device off" section:

If the rules define it as a self-ratifying attestation to a
given device, the device is ratified.

[Note 1:  I'm not sure how the 'it' will be interpreted, but the previous
clause is "By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend,
or repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator.", so something in
that earlier clause might be the "it".]

[Note 2: I don't think I saw this sentence on people's suggestions, but
let me know if I missed it]

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment #2: SUCCESS

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

On 9/12/2021 11:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> Mad Engineer's Weekly intent announcement (i.e. the weekly report)
> 
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend Rule 2654, by
> appending the following list item to the "device off" section:
> 
>   By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or
>   repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator.
> 
> 
> [Proposing adding it to the off section as a best practice - don't test
> code on production machines!  That principle works both for not adding
> text to the machine's current state right now, and not changing the
> device's future regulations unless it is turned off.]
> 

With the support of Trigon, ATMunn, and Jason, and with no objections, I
cause Rule 2655 to make the above-described rule change.

-G.

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Weekly Rule: Rule 2201/10 (Self-Ratification)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The Mad Engineer pick of the week (see botspam on Discord for the die
roll).  Soliciting suggestions for the Device (in DIS or in discord).  If
your suggestion is used I will give you 1 BoC.

Rule 2201/10 (Power=3)
Self-Ratification

  When a public document is continuously undoubted for one week
  after publication:

  - If the rules define it as self-ratifying, it is ratified.

  - If the rules define it as a self-ratifying attestation to a
given statement, the statement is ratified.

This clause is inapplicable if the statement to be ratified
cannot be reasonably ascertained from the ruleset and the
contents of the message.

  Any person CAN by announcement issue a doubt (syn. claim of
  error), identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature
  of a perceived error in it (or in a statement it attests to).

  When this happens, the publisher of the original document SHALL
  (if e was required to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise)
  do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
  that clearly cites the claim of error:

 1. Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).

 2. Publish a revision.

 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim
(if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a
relevant existing inquiry case.

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Weekly intent (#2)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Mad Engineer's Weekly intent announcement (i.e. the weekly report)

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend Rule 2654, by
appending the following list item to the "device off" section:

  By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend, or
  repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator.


[Proposing adding it to the off section as a best practice - don't test
code on production machines!  That principle works both for not adding
text to the machine's current state right now, and not changing the
device's future regulations unless it is turned off.]

OFF: [Tracker of the Device] Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

> A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.
> - Paul Erdos

---

Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

September 12, 2021

The Device is: On


History:
30 Aug 2021 20:03:28  Created by Proposal 8599
10 Sep 2021 00:20:28  Flipped on by G.

---

OFF: [Mad Engineer] click - hummmmmmm - holiday

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

On 9/4/2021 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the device to "on".

With the support of Trigon, Murphy, and Falsifian, and respectful
acknowledgement of ais523's objection, I flip the Device to on.

Happy Holiday!!


Rule 2654/1 excerpt
>  When the device is on:
>* click - hummm
>* The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device,
>  together with the following week, is a Holiday.

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Weekly Rule: Rule 2493/8 (Regulations)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The Mad Engineer pick of the week (see botspam on Discord for the die
roll).  Soliciting suggestions for the Device (in DIS or in discord).  If
your suggestion is used I will give you 1 BoC.

Rule 2493/8 (Power=3)
Regulations

  A regulation is an textual entity defined as such by this rule,
  and under the authority of an person, known as its Promulgator. A
  regulation must be authorized by a rule (its parent rule) in order
  to exist. It has only the effect that rule explicitly gives it.

  A regulation CAN be enacted, amended, and repealed as specified by
  its parent rule. By default, a person CAN, with 2 Agoran consent,
  enact, amend, or repeal a regulation for which e is the
  Promulgator. Regulations are tracked by the Rulekeepor as part of
  eir weekly and monthly reports in a fashion similar to rules.

OFF: (@ADoP) Tracker of the Device's Weekly Ping

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

>  hm. I've lost a machine.. literally _lost_. it responds to ping,
> it works completely, I just can't figure out where in my apartment it
> is.  http://www.bash.org/?5273

-

Tracker of the Device's Weekly Report

September 04, 2021

The Device is: Off

-

OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

On 9/4/2021 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> the "device on" section:
>>
>>   The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together
>>   with the following week, is a Holiday.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the device to "on".


[I'm not sure if the following is part of weekly duties or not, likely not
but who knows]

Mad Engineer's Weekly Device Report:  The device is currently off.

-G.

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Experiment #1: SUCCESS

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

On 8/31/2021 7:26 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend Rule 2654, by
> appending the following list item[**] to the "device on" section:
> 
>   The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together
>   with the following week, is a Holiday.

Having received no objections, and with support from Falsifian, Jason,
Telna, and Trigon, I do so.

-G.

OFF: [Mad Scientist] Lab Notebook (also @treasuror)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

[From the Lab Notebook of the Mad Scientist, aka the Mad Scientist's
Weekly Report]

August 31  Breakthrough.  Version 1's failure no longer stares me in the
face (putting it in a nonexistent proposal was a bad idea).  Now it's
there, waiting to turn on.  After all these years: the Device.  Polished.
Stable.  Just need to flip the switch and collect data.  But ... so, so
tired.  It's been years.  Time for a break.  Can't think.  Need a break.
Just ... need ... to ... turn on the randomizer:

Rule 1769 (Holidays) [*]

Aha!  That's the solution.  turn the device on for a holiday.  Only way.


I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend Rule 2654, by
appending the following list item[**] to the "device on" section:

  The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together
  with the following week, is a Holiday.



[*] selected on Agora botspam discord channel, using the Rulekeepor's
random rule pick tool.

[**] contributed by Aspen (discord thread).

I transfer 5 BoC to Jason for creating said tool.
I transfer 1 BoC to Aspen for contributing the proposed sentence (in discord).
Also, I transfer 10 points (G.'s contract or whatever points) to Aspen.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3917 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is CFJ 3917.  I assign it to G.

[something's up with my CotC data entry/report generator thingie.  sorry
for messy format].

CFJ Statement: Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

Called by Trigon:   17 Jun 2021 04:44:46 +


On 6/16/2021 9:44 PM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> On 17/06/2021 04:41, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 17/06/2021 04:15, Rebecca Lee via agora-official wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:08 PM Telna via agora-business <
>>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
 *sigh*
 I Point my Finger at Trigon for not tracking the Unit of Flotation in
 eir weekly report for the week beginning June 7th as directed by Rule
 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet".
 I Point my Finger at Trigon for not tracking the Unit of Flotation in
 eir weekly report for the week beginning May 31st as directed by Rule
 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet".

>>>
>>> I hereby investigate both of these finger pointings.
>>>
>>> Trigon did indeed violate rule 2635 (implemented in rule 2143) by failing
>>> to track this information in documents that purported to be Treasuror's
>>> reports. E did so in both weeks, which are within the statute of
>>> limitations (the deadline for the week of May 31 expired 12 days ago on
>>> June 6).
>>>
>>> I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Trigon for not tracking the Unit of
>>> Flotation for the week of May 31st. Although there's no Class of crime 
>>> here
>>> I find it exceedingly similar to the Class-2 crime of Tardiness. The 
>>> crime
>>> is inadvertent and appears to be a simple lack of knowledge of exactly 
>>> what
>>> e had to track (Trigon has generally done a great job of officer accuracy
>>> and timeliness). I impose a 1 blot fine on Trigon.
>>>
>>> I impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Trigon for not tracking the Unit of
>>> Flotation for the week of June 7th. I levy a 1 blot fine on Trigon, see
>>> above.
>>>
>>
>> Actually, the Unit of Flotation is tracked in the Treasuror's weekly 
>> report. Admittedly, it's not next to the Total Buoyancy, as one might 
>> expect, but it is in there, in the History section, at the beginning of 
>> each month:
>>
>>> *** Tue 1 June 2021 ...
>>> [00:00]   RELEVELING: TB=35779, UF=14. 
>>
>> This might not be enough, however, since this is the History section's 
>> header:
>>
>>> RECENT HISTORY    (does not self-ratify)
>>> 
>>
>> The labels on the right side have always been intended to be 
>> informational; however, I admit that it's not one hundred percent clear 
>> what these do legally.
>>
>> I accept that I should put these things in a better location, and I 
>> apologize for the elision of the information. I will include it in 
>> future reports. In my defense, the bit requiring that I track the UF is 
>> in a weird place.
>>
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and CFJ this.
> 
> CFJ: Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of Flotation for 
> the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.
> 
> Arguments: the portion of the text quoted above written by Trigon.
> 

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

[a manual formatting drive-by]

The below CFJ is 3916.  I assign it to ais523.


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: Re: BUS: [Emergency] Please remain calm (@ADoP) (attn Arbitor)
To: Agora Business 
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 14:18:26 -0700
From: Edward Murphy via agora-business 

G. wrote:

> On 2/6/2021 2:24 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
>>
>> In the interest of confirming whether these changes were effective, I
>> hereby petition Possibly H. Possibly Prime Minister G. to disclose to me
>> any and all unhashed text underlying Second Regulation of G.ravity,
>>
> 
> Hm, looks like the Prime Minister never responded to this (I couldn't, I
> wasn't the prime minister - petitions are only directed to officers and
> this is clearly to the office of PM).  I hate to leave unifinished
> business around.
> 
> I deputize for the Prime Minister to respond to the above petition as
> follows.
> 
> The unhashed text indicated above is:
> 
> LAWS OF G.RAVITY
> 
> It is IMPOSSIBLE to cause the regulation to do anything truly stupid,
> or anything that would NOT treat Agora Right Good Forever.
> 
> (void where prohibited)
> 

CFJ, barring G.: G.'s attempt to deputise for Prime Minister on or about
Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:39:36 -0700 was effective.

Caller's arguments: There's an impedance mismatch between the rules on
petitions (which are indeed limited to officers) and my clear intent (to
petition G. specifically). Could that text be interpreted as "if G.
wasn't PM, then the petition was ineffective due to lack of clarity"?

Here's the ADoP report addressing G. possibly being PM at the time in
question:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-February/014626.html

I thought there was a CFJ that e wasn't, but I couldn't find one. Later
ADoP reports maintained the assumption that e wasn't, and they weren't
disputed on that basis (though their self-ratification may not have
affected this particular point, as Trigon was uncontroversially elected
PM on Feb 14, and the next ADoP report reflected that, only addressing
the previous question by omission from the non-self-ratifying history
section).


> CFJ, barring G.: G.'s attempt to deputise for Prime Minister on or about
> Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:39:36 -0700 was effective.
>
> Caller's arguments: There's an impedance mismatch between the rules on
> petitions (which are indeed limited to officers) and my clear intent (to
> petition G. specifically). Could that text be interpreted as "if G.
> wasn't PM, then the petition was ineffective due to lack of clarity"?
>
> Here's the ADoP report addressing G. possibly being PM at the time in
> question:

--

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Counterarguments:  when chosing words that have clear legal effect
(petition) and a clear rules target (offices) and an office is clearly
mentioned (prime minister, even if the announcement is qualified by
"possibly prime minister"), and the action only works in one set of
circumstances (as a petition to the PM), deference in ambiguity should be
given to the rules process that was explicitly invoked.

>
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-February/014626.html
>
> I thought there was a CFJ that e wasn't, but I couldn't find one.

It's this one: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899.

> Later
> ADoP reports maintained the assumption that e wasn't, and they weren't
> disputed on that basis (though their self-ratification may not have
> affected this particular point, as Trigon was uncontroversially elected
> PM on Feb 14, and the next ADoP report reflected that, only addressing
> the previous question by omission from the non-self-ratifying history
> section).

Not sure if it matters, CFJ was called 07 Feb 2021 15:32:46.  So the
petition was made before any doubts were expressed formally (in the ADoP
report or the CFJ).

Original petition message:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-February/045879.html

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 13 Jun 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3910 Assigned to Gaelan EXTENDED Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 16:17:39
3913 Assigned to Jason   Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 14:56:38
3914 Assigned to Jason   Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 14:56:58
3915 Assigned to ATMunn  Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 14:57:20


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3909 G.
3910 Gaelan
3911 Murphy
3554 ais523
3914 Jason
3915 ATMunn
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
3915 Assigned to ATMunn [Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 14:57:20]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Assigned to Jason [Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 14:56:58]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Assigned to Jason [Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 14:56:38]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3913
 A player who possesses 3 Blots can have their Voting Strength on a
 particular decision go above 15 as a consequence of Buying
 Strength.

3910 Assigned to Gaelan [EXTENDED Due Sun 20 Jun 2021 16:17:39]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3912 Judged TRUE by Jason [Mon 07 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3912
 The above pledge made by Gaelan has expired.

3911 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 06 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3911
 For the purposes of R2553, CFJ 3907 is about the effectiveness,
 possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate.

3909 Judged IRRELEVANT by G. [Sun 13 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3909
 The contract "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" has finite length.

3908 Judged TRUE by G. [Sun 13 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3908
 The above amendment to "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" was successful.

3907 Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3907
 I have violated one of the quoted pledges.

3906 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 25 May 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3906
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
 Falsifian's possession.

3905 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 25 May 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3905
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
 Falsifian.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3915 Assigned to ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3915.  I assign it to ATMunn.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3915

===  CFJ 3915  ===

  Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

==

Caller:G.
Barred:Aris

Judge: ATMunn

==

History:

Called by Aris:   08 Jun 2021 15:50:31
Assigned to ATMunn:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

I believe this should be FALSE.  Buying strength is a fee-based action.
The below message does not (as per Rule 2579):
>specify the correct set of
> assets for the fee and indicate intent to pay that fee for the
> sole purpose of using that method to perform that action.


Caller's Evidence:

On 6/7/2021 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> I give Trigon 120 coins.
>
> I pay 4 voting cards as set to gain 10 extra votes.
> I pay 2 voting cards as a set to gain 3 extra votes.
>
> I give Trigon 8 extra votes.
>
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
> I buy strength.
>
> -Aris
>

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3914 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3914.  I assign it to Jason.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3914

===  CFJ 3914  ===

  A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
  via Buying Strength.

==

Caller:ais523

Judge: Jason

==

History:

Called by ais523: 08 Jun 2021 14:42:00
Assigned to Jason:[now]

==

[linked to CFJ 3913]

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2422/9 (Power=3)
Voting Strength

  The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an
  integer between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2
  or greater. If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of
  an entity on an Agoran decision is 3.
When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on
  an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the
  rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary
  precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than
  this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID. Finally, if
  the result of the calculation is not an integer, it is rounded
  up, and then if it is outside the allowable range of values for
  voting strength, it is set to the minimum value if it was less
  and the maximum value if it was more.
A player CAN Buy Strength by paying a fee of 1 Extra Vote. A
  player's Voting Strength on an ordinary referendum is 1 greater
  for every time e Bought Strength during that decision's voting
  period.

Rule 2556/1 (Power=3)
Penalties
[...]The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is
reduced
  by 1 for every 3 blots in eir possession.
[...]

Rule 2240/1 (Power=3)
No Cretans Need Apply

  In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one
  claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence;
  otherwise, the later clause takes precedence.


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2422 contains internal contradictions. The first paragraph
attempts to limit voting strengths to a particular range. The second
paragraph specifies how to apply multiple voting strength modifiers.
The third paragraph specifies how to Buy Strength.

Most notably, the second paragraph implies that if multiple rules
attempt to modify a player's Voting Strength (such as 2422 and 2556, in
the case of a player who has 3 Blots and has Bought Strength), the
modifications from rule 2422 are not applied at all (the conflict
resolution procedure applies modifications from "rules, other than this
one, which modify it", and does not specify any situation in which its
own modification applies.

The third paragraph, however, says that Buying Strength *does* modify a
player's voting strength. As far as I can tell, this introduces a
contradiction between the second and third paragraphs, resolved by Rule
2240. If the second paragraph is interpreted as having an implicit
precedence claim, it wins, and players with 3+ Blots cannot usefully
Buy Strength.

More interestingly, if it is interpreted as not containing a precedence
claim, then the third paragraph wins, allowing players with 3+ Blots to
Buy Strength despite the conflict resolution mechanism. In this case,
it seems as though the third paragraph would be able to override the
first paragraph, too, and allow players to increase their Voting
Strengths without bounds.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3913 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3913.  I assign it to Jason.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3913

===  CFJ 3913  ===

  A player who possesses 3 Blots can have their Voting Strength on a
  particular decision go above 15 as a consequence of Buying
  Strength.

==

Caller:ais523

Judge: Jason

==

History:

Called by ais523: 08 Jun 2021 14:42:00
Assigned to Jason:[now]

==

[linked to CFJ 3914]

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2422/9 (Power=3)
Voting Strength

  The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an
  integer between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2
  or greater. If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of
  an entity on an Agoran decision is 3.
When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on
  an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the
  rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary
  precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than
  this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID. Finally, if
  the result of the calculation is not an integer, it is rounded
  up, and then if it is outside the allowable range of values for
  voting strength, it is set to the minimum value if it was less
  and the maximum value if it was more.
A player CAN Buy Strength by paying a fee of 1 Extra Vote. A
  player's Voting Strength on an ordinary referendum is 1 greater
  for every time e Bought Strength during that decision's voting
  period.

Rule 2556/1 (Power=3)
Penalties
[...]The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is
reduced
  by 1 for every 3 blots in eir possession.
[...]

Rule 2240/1 (Power=3)
No Cretans Need Apply

  In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one
  claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence;
  otherwise, the later clause takes precedence.


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2422 contains internal contradictions. The first paragraph
attempts to limit voting strengths to a particular range. The second
paragraph specifies how to apply multiple voting strength modifiers.
The third paragraph specifies how to Buy Strength.

Most notably, the second paragraph implies that if multiple rules
attempt to modify a player's Voting Strength (such as 2422 and 2556, in
the case of a player who has 3 Blots and has Bought Strength), the
modifications from rule 2422 are not applied at all (the conflict
resolution procedure applies modifications from "rules, other than this
one, which modify it", and does not specify any situation in which its
own modification applies.

The third paragraph, however, says that Buying Strength *does* modify a
player's voting strength. As far as I can tell, this introduces a
contradiction between the second and third paragraphs, resolved by Rule
2240. If the second paragraph is interpreted as having an implicit
precedence claim, it wins, and players with 3+ Blots cannot usefully
Buy Strength.

More interestingly, if it is interpreted as not containing a precedence
claim, then the third paragraph wins, allowing players with 3+ Blots to
Buy Strength despite the conflict resolution mechanism. In this case,
it seems as though the third paragraph would be able to override the
first paragraph, too, and allow players to increase their Voting
Strengths without bounds.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3909 Judged IRRELEVANT by G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3909
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3909  ===

  The contract "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" has finite length.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: G.
Judgement: IRRELEVANT

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 29 May 2021 00:26:07
Assigned to G.:   06 Jun 2021 16:15:32
Judged IRRELEVANT by G.:  13 Jun 2021 14:25:09

==

[Linked to CFJ 3908]

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/27/2021 1:03 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the following contract named "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich":
>
> --
> Cuddlebeam is the sole party to this contract.
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> --
>
> I consent to modify the above contract by adding layers for all natural
> numbers, alternating bread and ham, following this example:
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 5: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 6: This is a layer of ham.
> etc.
>
> Note that I just need to *consent* to a modification, not spell it out
> entirely.
>

--

Judge G.'s Arguments:

"Length" is poorly defined here and unimportant to the functioning of the
contract.  One could even say that since this contract does nothing (has
no actual provisions for anyone to do anything) the length of the actual
provisions is 0 (though I wouldn't suggest that the notary should
interpret to the extent of leaving the provisions blank in eir report).
In any case, it's a matter of semantics and I judge IRRELEVANT.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3912 Judged TRUE by Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3912
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3912  ===

  The above pledge made by Gaelan has expired.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: Jason
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 29 May 2021 00:28:49
Assigned to Jason:06 Jun 2021 16:18:25
Judged TRUE by Jason: 07 Jun 2021 15:15:32

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/22/2021 8:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour.
>
> (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? Right 
> But I can't find it, so let's find out)
>
> Gaelan
> 


Caller's Arguments:

The rules for pledges state that the time window is "W days,"
but nowhere does it say that W must be an integer. I think it is
reasonable to say that the time window was set to 1/24th of a day.

--

Judge Jason's Arguments:

By application of the precedent in CFJ 3752 [0] (which found that the N
for the class of Oathbreaking must be a number, even though it was not
explicitly stated in the text), W must be a number. Having determined
that, I find no explicit textual reason to diverge from the general rule
in R2509 that "numbers" are real numbers by default, so 1/24 is a valid
value for W, and the default of 60 days does not apply. The pledge
expired 1 hour after it was made.

Judged TRUE.


Judge Jason's Evidence:

[0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3752


Rule 2450/10 (Power=1.7)
Pledges

  If a consenting Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to
  perform (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then
  breaking the pledge is ILLEGAL; doing so is the Class N crime of
  Oathbreaking, where N is the value explicitly stated by the
  pledge, or 2 if the pledge does not explicitly state a value.
  Allowing a pledge to expire without carrying out an action one
  pledged to do in it constitutes breaking the pledge.
The time window of a pledge is W days, where W is the value
  explicitly stated by the pledge, or 60 if the pledge does not
  explicitly state a value. A pledge ceases to exist at the end of
  its time window.
If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
  SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
  appropriate fine.
The Notary CAN destroy a pledge Without Objection, but SHOULD NOT
  do so unless the pledge no longer serves any significant purpose.


Rule 2509/2 (Power=2)
Agoran Numbers [Excerpt]

  A "number" is considered to refer to a real number, unless
  otherwise explicitly specified.  A "number of (items)", where
  (items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a
  non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3911 Judged TRUE by Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3911
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3911  ===

  For the purposes of R2553, CFJ 3907 is about the effectiveness,
  possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate.

==

Caller:G.
Barred:Gaelan

Judge: Murphy
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by G.: 05 Jun 2021 21:58:39
Assigned to Murphy:   06 Jun 2021 16:18:00
Judged TRUE by Murphy:06 Jun 2021 20:46:44

==

Caller's Evidence:

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3907


Caller's Arguments:

Gaelan wrote:
> The fact that I violated the rules has a direct impact on the
> effectiveness, legality, etc of our various criminal-justice
> mechanisms, so I'd argue TRUE. If necessary, I would just call
> another CFJ along the lines of "it's possible to give me blots
> for violating that pledge".

That answer's trivial - it's not possible, because you can't actually be
blotted for an indeterminate crime:

Rule 2531
> Any attempt to levy a fine pursuant to the imposition of the Cold
> Hand of Justice is INEFFECTIVE if:
>   (1) it attempts to levy a fine on a person when that person
>   can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence to
>   have committed the action or inaction for which the fine was
>   levied;

This protection makes it irrelevant.

--

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

It is about the possibility of Gaelan violating one of the pledges in
question (which would itself be a change in the gamestate, separate from
any possible punishment arising from it). In particular, Gaelan took at
least one action within the first pledge's time window (namely
publishing the second pledge).

As usual for paradox wins, I believe that the rules should now be
legislatively error-trapped to prevent arbitrary repetition of these
actions, but a paradox win for the first instance is warranted.

I judge TRUE.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3908 Judged TRUE by G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3908
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3908  ===

  The above amendment to "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" was successful.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: G.
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 29 May 2021 00:26:07
Assigned to G.:   06 Jun 2021 16:15:08
Judged TRUE by G.:13 Jun 2021 14:25:09

==

[Linked to CFJ 3909]

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/27/2021 1:03 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the following contract named "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich":
>
> --
> Cuddlebeam is the sole party to this contract.
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> --
>
> I consent to modify the above contract by adding layers for all natural
> numbers, alternating bread and ham, following this example:
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 5: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 6: This is a layer of ham.
> etc.
>
> Note that I just need to *consent* to a modification, not spell it out
> entirely.
>

--

Judge G.'s Arguments:

1.  A contract doesn't have text, it has provisions.  By legal definition
a provision is a contract elements, but need not be in 1-1 correspondence
with a set text.  99% of the time this *will* be a set text, but it's not
an absolute requirement.

Example - set of public exchanges: "hey person X do you want to make a
binding agreement to trade my asset A for my asset B? I agree if you do."
 "Sure I agree".  That's a contract with clear understanding, but the
"provisions" aren't an exact match to a text.

Importantly, the legal definition of provision (proviso) is (surveying
various dictionaries) a "stipulation that requires action/introduces
conditions etc."  In a numbered text, numbered clauses that are entirely
flavor without requiring action might not be provisions at all.  Or
several clauses might add to one provision, etc.

2.  For a provision to be "fully available" as per R1742 there needs to be
sufficient information available for a judge to interpret any provision,
and the "understanding" of the whole.  Being able to say "I interpret the
Nth clause..." where N is part of well-defined and easily calculated[*]
infinite series is fine and sufficient to understand the "whole" agreement.

[*] easily calculated, I could tell you instantly for this contract what
the Nth clause of the text is, sufficient enough to interpret its full
legal effect, even if N is a googol or a googolplex.  If e.g. it depended
on the actual value of the googolith digit of pi, that's well-defined but
not easily calculated, so wouldn't be available.

3.  Therefore, the amendment of the contract to a fully defined process
with well-defined and easily calculated (though infinite) clauses was
fine.  I judge TRUE.

4.  The only difficulty is how the Notary publishes the "full provisions"
as per R2608.  But this is an orthogonal tracking issue, and it is likely
an IRRELEVANT matter as the rules are written now. The Notary can't be
punished for failing to do something impossible, and the report of
contracts does not self-ratify[**] - publishing a good faith effort to
describe the full contract (i.e. using the same standards for "fully
available" above and publishing the generating instructions) is in keeping
in standards of reporting should suffice - and by precedent, reports don't
have to be perfect to be considered reports.

[**] I think the promise section self-ratifies because promises are
assets, but pledges and contracts aren't/don't.

==

OFF: [Prime Minister] Three cheers for Speaker Falsifian!

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I hereby APPOINT FALSIFIAN to the office of Speaker, for eir wielding of
the Gauntlet.

I hereby APPOINT FALSIFIAN to the office of Speaker, for eir taking over
of the economy.

Well done, Falsifian!

OFF: [Speaker] The Speaker Show 4, Guest: Cuddlebeam

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Helllooo Agora!  Today, we interview the interviewer - up on the show we
have the originator of the Speaker Show - Cuddlebeam!

So let's get speaker showing!


*G.:* Why do you like hanging out with the boring people in Agora?

*CB:* Because fortunately they’re very smart and insightful too.

*G.:* What Agoran game custom or precedent would you completely overturn
if you could?

*CB:* O f f i c e r s.

*G.:* What game custom or precedent would you import from another nomic,
if you could?

*CB:* A stronger general aesthetic theme. We’re kind of all over the place
with Thanos references, Cards and Products and now office hierarchy stuff.
And it’s OK because mechanics are much more important than theme on Agora,
but for visceral reasons I’d prefer if it was all more unified.

*G.:* We've read many nomic philosophies from legal and/or logical
disciplines - what would be an artistic philosophy of nomic?

*CB:* The ability to cause emotions in others via the game.

*G.:* Shh - how are you going to get your next Victory Card?  We can keep
a secret!

*CB:* I’m going to use my secret weapon: begging.

*G.:* anything else you'd like to share?

*CB:* I’m single, ladies.


And with that I'm afraid our time is up.  Thank you Cuddlebeam!  It's been
an honor.

OFF: [Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8573

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I hereby issue a Cabinet Order of Manifesto, to distribute the below
Proposal, initiating a referendum on it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is
3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and
AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).


ID: 8573
Title:  The Device
Adoption index: 1
Author:  G.
Coauthor: Murphy

[inspired by Rules 2192-2193, "The Monster", by Murphy]


Enact a Rule "The Device" with the following text:

  When the device is on:
* click - hummm

  When the device is off:
* whirr - THUNK


Enact a Rule "The Mad Engineer" with the following text:

  The Mad Engineer is an office; its holder is responsible for
  building and maintaining the Device.  The device is a
  singleton switch with values off (default) and on.  The Mad
  Engineer CAN flip the device to either on or off with Agoran
  Consent; any other player CAN do so with 2 Agoran Consent.

  The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of
  the device to take any action that the device may take, and
  SHALL act on behalf of the device to ensure that the device
  fulfills all of its duties.

  The Mad Engineer's weekly duties include the performance of the
  following tasks, in order:

  a) Randomly select exactly one rule.  If the selected rule is
 either this rule or the rule "The Device", then
 007 has been spotted near the self-destruct button; skip
 directly to proposal submission.

  b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected
 rule.

  c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace
 each instance of that noun with "Device" (including
 grammatical variations, e.g. replacing "'s" with
 "Device's").

  d) Announce intent to, with Agoran Consent, cause this rule
 to amend the rule "The Device" by inserting the modified
 text as the last list item in either the "device on" or
 "device off" lists in that rule (or, if 007 has been
 spotted, to repeal both that rule and this one).
 This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's weekly
 report.

  If the announcement of intent above is made with the procedure
  described above, the Mad Engineer CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause
  this rule to amend the rule "The Device" as indicated, and SHALL
  do so if the intent receives sufficient support.


G. becomes the holder of the office of Mad Engineer.

An election for Mad Engineer is initiated.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 06 Jun 2021 16:21:12 UTC


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3908 Assigned to G.  Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:15:08
3909 Assigned to G.  Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:15:32
3910 Assigned to Gaelan  Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:17:39
3911 Assigned to Murphy  Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:18:00
3912 Assigned to Jason   Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:18:25


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3904 ATMunn
3909 G.
3910 Gaelan
3911 Murphy
3912 Jason
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
3912 Assigned to Jason [Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:18:25]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3912
 The above pledge made by Gaelan has expired.

3911 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:18:00]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3911
 For the purposes of R2553, CFJ 3907 is about the effectiveness,
 possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate.

3910 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:17:39]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

3909 Assigned to G. [Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:15:32]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3909
 The contract "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" has finite length.

3908 Assigned to G. [Due Sun 13 Jun 2021 16:15:08]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3908
 The above amendment to "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" was successful.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3907 Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3907
 I have violated one of the quoted pledges.

3906 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 25 May 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3906
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
 Falsifian's possession.

3905 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 25 May 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3905
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
 Falsifian.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3911 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3911.  I assign it to Murphy.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3911

===  CFJ 3911  ===

  For the purposes of R2553, CFJ 3907 is about the effectiveness,
  possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate.

==

Caller:G.
Barred:Gaelan


Judge:
==

History:

Called by G.: 05 Jun 2021 21:58:39
Assigned to Murphy:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3907


Caller's Arguments:

Gaelan wrote:
> The fact that I violated the rules has a direct impact on the
> effectiveness, legality, etc of our various criminal-justice
> mechanisms, so I'd argue TRUE. If necessary, I would just call
> another CFJ along the lines of "it's possible to give me blots
> for violating that pledge".

That answer's trivial - it's not possible, because you can't actually be
blotted for an indeterminate crime:

Rule 2531
> Any attempt to levy a fine pursuant to the imposition of the Cold
> Hand of Justice is INEFFECTIVE if:
>   (1) it attempts to levy a fine on a person when that person
>   can't be established by a preponderance of the evidence to
>   have committed the action or inaction for which the fine was
>   levied;

This protection makes it irrelevant.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3912 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3912.  I assign it to Jason.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3912

===  CFJ 3912  ===

  The above pledge made by Gaelan has expired.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: Jason

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 29 May 2021 00:28:49
Assigned to Jason:[now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/22/2021 8:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour.
>
> (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? Right 
> But I can't find it, so let's find out)
>
> Gaelan
> 


Caller's Arguments:

The rules for pledges state that the time window is "W days,"
but nowhere does it say that W must be an integer. I think it is
reasonable to say that the time window was set to 1/24th of a day.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3910 Assigned to Gaelan

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3910.  I assign it to Gaelan.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3910

===  CFJ 3910  ===

  Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
  by adding a new paragraph.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: Gaelan

==

History:

Called by Jason:  30 May 2021 15:16:21
Assigned to Gaelan:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

> //
> ID: 8559
> Title: Paper Shredding
> Adoption index: 2.5
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-authors: G., Aris
>
>
> Amend Rule 1742 "Contracts" by appending the following:
>
>   Any player CAN cause a contract to be terminated (syn. "shred")
>   without 2 objections. This SHOULD only be done to remove unused
>   contracts or contracts deemed detrimental to the game as a whole.
>
> //


Caller's Arguments:

The plain meaning of "append" is simply a string concatenation, without
inserting paragraph breaks. The clear intent, as confirmed by the author
on Discord, however, is for the text to be inserted as a new paragraph
(and this is perhaps indicated in the text by the formatting as a new
paragraph). Perhaps this question means that the entire rule change
failed under Rule 105/22 by " Any ambiguity in the specification of a
rule change causes that change to be void and without effect."

--

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

For "append the following text", as opposed to e.g. "append the following
paragraph" it is unclear how much whitespace exists at the end of each
rule (does each rule end with a R2429 "significant" paragraph break?).
Also, in this proposal, there is a space between the "Amend" command and
the text - is that a significant paragraph break to insert?

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3907 Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3907
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3907  ===

  I have violated one of the quoted pledges.

==

Caller:Gaelan

Judge: Aris
Judgement: PARADOXICAL

==

History:

Called by Gaelan: 25 May 2021 19:31:51
Assigned to Aris: 28 May 2021 00:12:08
Judged PARADOXICAL by Aris:   05 Jun 2021 21:46:27

==

Caller's Evidence:

> On May 22, 2021, at 5:45 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>  wrote:
>
> 
>
>> On May 22, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour.
>>
>> (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? 
>> Right But I can't find it, so let's find out)
>>
>> Gaelan
>
> wait, oops: I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one day.
>
> Gaelan

--

Judge Aris's Arguments:

Gaelan pledged "I pledge to violate this pledge,
with a time window of one day." (Eir other pledge,
which may or may not exist, is substantively equivalent
for the purposes of this CFJ.) A day passed. Did Gaelan
violate this pledge?

There are two possibilities.

1) Gaelan created a pledge that refers to itself,
causing an infinite loop. In this case, the CFJ is
PARADOXICAL.

2) Gaelan's purported pledge does not properly specify
actions to perform or refrain from performing, since
determining the actions results in an infinite loop.
In this case, the CFJ is DISMISS.

Another way of looking at it is that this all depends
on whether the action can have a parameter. In other
words, can I pledge, for all Y "I pledge to take an
action X, such that X accomplishes Y"? Can I never
pledge this? Or can I only pledge this if it's clear
what sort of X accomplishes Y? This is determinative
because Gaelan's pledge can be translated to "I pledge
to take an action X, such that X violates this pledge".

I think it's clear that "I pledge to not violate the
rules" is a valid pledge. We have a reasonably clear
notion of what sorts of things violate the rules.
I think it's equally clear that, as G. pointed out,
"I pledge that the sun will rise tomorrow" is invalid,
given that the sun rising is not an action taken by
any Agoran (unless Helios happens to be a player).
The question in this case is, would the
pledge "I pledge not to do anything that would
cause the sun not rise is valid" be valid?
That's harder to figure out.

"But Aris," you say, "you haven't looked at the
text. Surely the text solves this problem and you're
just making things more complicated than
they need to be." Alright, let's look at the text.

Rule 2450/10, "Pledges", says "If a consenting Player
makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
(or refrain from performing) certain actions, then
breaking the pledge is ILLEGAL".

One thing is certain: pledges must be clear.
Unfortunately, this doesn't resolve the case. The
relevant question is whether the "certain actions"
must be clear. That is, do I need to know the
specific actions that would violate the pledge,
or merely the categories of actions that might.
The text can be read either way. Textually,
I would say that these interpretations are
equally plausible.

Can we resolve this problem through game custom?
If we error trap anything that can cause a paradox,
we will have no paradoxes. Does game custom
say this is a good or a bad thing? The answer is
unfortunately rather mixed. For many years,
Agora had a way to win by paradox. In such a system,
I would guess that  while people tried to prevent
paradoxes, they would be tolerant of the notion that
they might arise anyway. Then that win method
was repealed. Agora went through a period where
paradoxes didn't help anything, simply making
the state of the game more confusing. In this
period, judges avoided paradox wherever possible.
Then, we reenacted wins by paradox. Now, it
is culturally unclear whether paradoxes are to be
avoided or embraced in judicial interpretation.

However, there is one norm that is abundantly
clear. Actions cannot be structured to be
paradoxical in and of themselves: if an
action is specified in a way that resolves
to an infinite loop, it is not taken at all.
For instance, "If this sentence is false, I..."
doesn't work. When taken, an action must be
fully and completely specified.

One final point about game custom. While it is
not necessarily the most persuasive factor,
Agorans in general take a fairly
math/logic/programming view of the 

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3909 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3909.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3909

===  CFJ 3909  ===

  The contract "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" has finite length.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 29 May 2021 00:26:07
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

[Linked to CFJ 3908]

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/27/2021 1:03 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the following contract named "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich":
>
> --
> Cuddlebeam is the sole party to this contract.
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> --
>
> I consent to modify the above contract by adding layers for all natural
> numbers, alternating bread and ham, following this example:
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 5: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 6: This is a layer of ham.
> etc.
>
> Note that I just need to *consent* to a modification, not spell it out
> entirely.
>

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3908 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3908.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3908

===  CFJ 3908  ===

  The above amendment to "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich" was successful.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 29 May 2021 00:26:07
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

[Linked to CFJ 3909]

Caller's Evidence:

On 5/27/2021 1:03 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I create the following contract named "Cuddlebeam's Sandwich":
>
> --
> Cuddlebeam is the sole party to this contract.
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> --
>
> I consent to modify the above contract by adding layers for all natural
> numbers, alternating bread and ham, following this example:
>
> Layer 1: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 2: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 3: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 4: This is a layer of ham.
> Layer 5: This is a layer of bread.
> Layer 6: This is a layer of ham.
> etc.
>
> Note that I just need to *consent* to a modification, not spell it out
> entirely.
>

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3905 Judged TRUE by Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3905
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3905  ===

  With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
  Falsifian.

==

Caller:Falsifian

Judge: Jason
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by Falsifian:  16 May 2021 14:00:56
Assigned to Jason:17 May 2021 16:00:51
Judged TRUE by Jason: 25 May 2021 00:36:54

==

[Linked to CFJ 3906]

Caller's Evidence:

["Above-quoted message" from CFJ statement]

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:53:28PM +, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
> This is the termination message for the First Victory Auction of April 2021.
>
> List of bids (*=withdrawn player):
>
>  amount  bidder
>  ==  ===
>   100cn  G.
> 1cn  Jason
>   120cn  Jason
>   180cn  Falsifian
>   221cn  G.
>   222cn  ATMunn*
>   230cn  Jason
>   300cn  Falsifian
>   331cn  G.
>   400cn  Falsifian
>
> LOT 1:   ONE NEW VICTORY CARD
> AWARDEE: Falsifian
>
> I revoke 400 coins from Falsifian and create one victory card in eir
> possession.
>
> (No Faking: That may not have worked)
>
> -- 
> Trigon


1. Here's the message Trigon used to initate the auction, sent 2021-04-28:

> I, Trigon, the Treasuror of Agora Nomic, being authorized by Rule 2629/0 and
> furthermore being required to do so at least once a month, do hereby initiate
> a Victory Auction.
>
> As the Lost and Found Department owns no assets other than coins, the sole lot
> is a new Victory Card.
>
> The currency for this auction shall be the coin.
>
> The procedure for this auction shall be a Forward Auction, as described by the
> April 2021 draft of the Treasuror's Auction Regulations which can be found at
> the following link:
>
> 

I've copied the message from that link to the bottom of this email.


2. Trigon's enactment of the regulations, dated 2021-05-05:

> On 4/27/21 1:06 AM, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to amend the following auction
>> regulations so that they read as follows.
>
> Having recieved support from Jason and ATMunn and no objections, I do so.



Arguments for the second CFJ:

If the first CFJ is TRUE, I see no reason the second shouldn't be
TRUE too. The auction rules make it clear that the auctioneer can
do this if the auction method allows it, and the auction method is
clear.

If the first CFJ is FALSE because the auction regulation can't
empower Trigon to revoke assets, then I think it comes down to the
interpretation of the following sentence from the draft regulation:

   In this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL destroy the amount
   to be paid from the inventory each awardee and transfer to that
   player (or create in eir possession if the item is new) the set
   of assets associated with the lot e won.

The form is: "the auctioneer CAN and SHALL do A and B". But if
we've established they can't do A, then they can't do A and B.

This is a bit ambiguous. Maybe the sentence has no effect since the
regulation is trying to empower the auctioneer to do something (A
and B together) that they can't. Or maybe it should be read as
authorizing the auctioneer to do A and also B.

However, even under the second interpretation, I still think it
would be FALSE, because R2545 requires the auction method to be
"generally recognizable ... as a fair, equitable, and timely
[method]". Winning just by being the last person to state a bigger
meaningless number than the last person, when a casual reading of
the the regulations wouldn't make it clear that's the goal, doesn't
seem fair.


Arguments for FALSE for the first CFJ:

Note that the auction began before the regulations were amended. This
may affect interpretation of the clause: "For the purposes of
interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if they
are defined in this rule.", which seems to refer specifically to
auction regulations.

Even if we do consider the new regulation text to have been in force, I
still think it should be FALSE. I think the following quotes from the
recent thread "[Treasuror] [Auction Regulations Proto] Rough Draft for
Redesign" summarise my position (I also included Trigon's reply).

Falsifian:

> Can an auction regulation give the auctioneer the power to destroy
> assets, as this text purports to do?
>
> As far as I can tell the only power this regulation has is that it 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Fri 28 May 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3907 Assigned to ArisDue Fri 04 Jun 2021 00:12:08


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
3903 G.
3904 ATMunn
3906 Jason
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
3907 Assigned to Aris [Due Fri 04 Jun 2021 00:12:08]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3907
 I have violated one of the quoted pledges.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3906 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 25 May 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3906
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
 Falsifian's possession.

3905 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 25 May 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3905
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
 Falsifian.

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3906 Judged TRUE by Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3906
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3906  ===

  With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
  Falsifian's possession.

==

Caller:Falsifian

Judge: Jason
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by Falsifian:  16 May 2021 14:00:56
Assigned to Jason:17 May 2021 16:01:25
Judged TRUE by Jason: 25 May 2021 00:36:54

==

[Linked to CFJ 3905]

Caller's Evidence:

["Above-quoted message" from CFJ statement]

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:53:28PM +, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
> This is the termination message for the First Victory Auction of April 2021.
>
> List of bids (*=withdrawn player):
>
>  amount  bidder
>  ==  ===
>   100cn  G.
> 1cn  Jason
>   120cn  Jason
>   180cn  Falsifian
>   221cn  G.
>   222cn  ATMunn*
>   230cn  Jason
>   300cn  Falsifian
>   331cn  G.
>   400cn  Falsifian
>
> LOT 1:   ONE NEW VICTORY CARD
> AWARDEE: Falsifian
>
> I revoke 400 coins from Falsifian and create one victory card in eir
> possession.
>
> (No Faking: That may not have worked)
>
> -- 
> Trigon


1. Here's the message Trigon used to initate the auction, sent 2021-04-28:

> I, Trigon, the Treasuror of Agora Nomic, being authorized by Rule 2629/0 and
> furthermore being required to do so at least once a month, do hereby initiate
> a Victory Auction.
>
> As the Lost and Found Department owns no assets other than coins, the sole lot
> is a new Victory Card.
>
> The currency for this auction shall be the coin.
>
> The procedure for this auction shall be a Forward Auction, as described by the
> April 2021 draft of the Treasuror's Auction Regulations which can be found at
> the following link:
>
> 

I've copied the message from that link to the bottom of this email.


2. Trigon's enactment of the regulations, dated 2021-05-05:

> On 4/27/21 1:06 AM, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to amend the following auction
>> regulations so that they read as follows.
>
> Having recieved support from Jason and ATMunn and no objections, I do so.



Arguments for the second CFJ:

If the first CFJ is TRUE, I see no reason the second shouldn't be
TRUE too. The auction rules make it clear that the auctioneer can
do this if the auction method allows it, and the auction method is
clear.

If the first CFJ is FALSE because the auction regulation can't
empower Trigon to revoke assets, then I think it comes down to the
interpretation of the following sentence from the draft regulation:

   In this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL destroy the amount
   to be paid from the inventory each awardee and transfer to that
   player (or create in eir possession if the item is new) the set
   of assets associated with the lot e won.

The form is: "the auctioneer CAN and SHALL do A and B". But if
we've established they can't do A, then they can't do A and B.

This is a bit ambiguous. Maybe the sentence has no effect since the
regulation is trying to empower the auctioneer to do something (A
and B together) that they can't. Or maybe it should be read as
authorizing the auctioneer to do A and also B.

However, even under the second interpretation, I still think it
would be FALSE, because R2545 requires the auction method to be
"generally recognizable ... as a fair, equitable, and timely
[method]". Winning just by being the last person to state a bigger
meaningless number than the last person, when a casual reading of
the the regulations wouldn't make it clear that's the goal, doesn't
seem fair.


Arguments for FALSE for the first CFJ:

Note that the auction began before the regulations were amended. This
may affect interpretation of the clause: "For the purposes of
interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if they
are defined in this rule.", which seems to refer specifically to
auction regulations.

Even if we do consider the new regulation text to have been in force, I
still think it should be FALSE. I think the following quotes from the
recent thread "[Treasuror] [Auction Regulations Proto] Rough Draft for
Redesign" summarise my position (I also included Trigon's reply).

Falsifian:

> Can an auction regulation give the auctioneer the power to destroy
> assets, as this text purports to do?
>
> As far as I can tell the only power this 

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3907 Assigned to Aris

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3907.  I assign it to Aris.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3907

===  CFJ 3907  ===

  I have violated one of the quoted pledges.

==

Caller:Gaelan

Judge: Aris

==

History:

Called by Gaelan: 25 May 2021 19:31:51
Assigned to Aris: [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

> On May 22, 2021, at 5:45 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>  wrote:
>
> 
>
>> On May 22, 2021, at 5:44 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>>
>> I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one hour.
>>
>> (There has to be a paradox protection for pledges somewhere, right? 
>> Right But I can't find it, so let's find out)
>>
>> Gaelan
>
> wait, oops: I pledge to violate this pledge, with a time window of one day.
>
> Gaelan

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 17 May 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3905 Assigned to Jason   Due Mon 24 May 2021 16:00:51
3906 Assigned to Jason   Due Mon 24 May 2021 16:01:25


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
3903 G.
3904 ATMunn
3906 Jason
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
3906 Assigned to Jason [Due Mon 24 May 2021 16:01:25]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3906
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
 Falsifian's possession.

3905 Assigned to Jason [Due Mon 24 May 2021 16:00:51]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3905
 With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from
 Falsifian.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3904 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 19 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3904
 An amendment that results in no net change of text in a rule is a
 rulechange, and the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of it.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3906 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3906.  I assign it to Jason.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3906

===  CFJ 3906  ===

  With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in
  Falsifian's possession.

==

Caller:Falsifian

Judge: Jason

==

History:

Called by Falsifian:  16 May 2021 14:00:56
Assigned to Jason:[now]

==

[Linked to CFJ 3905]

Caller's Evidence:

["Above-quoted message" from CFJ statement]

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:53:28PM +, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
> This is the termination message for the First Victory Auction of April 2021.
>
> List of bids (*=withdrawn player):
>
>  amount  bidder
>  ==  ===
>   100cn  G.
> 1cn  Jason
>   120cn  Jason
>   180cn  Falsifian
>   221cn  G.
>   222cn  ATMunn*
>   230cn  Jason
>   300cn  Falsifian
>   331cn  G.
>   400cn  Falsifian
>
> LOT 1:   ONE NEW VICTORY CARD
> AWARDEE: Falsifian
>
> I revoke 400 coins from Falsifian and create one victory card in eir
> possession.
>
> (No Faking: That may not have worked)
>
> -- 
> Trigon


1. Here's the message Trigon used to initate the auction, sent 2021-04-28:

> I, Trigon, the Treasuror of Agora Nomic, being authorized by Rule 2629/0 and
> furthermore being required to do so at least once a month, do hereby initiate
> a Victory Auction.
>
> As the Lost and Found Department owns no assets other than coins, the sole lot
> is a new Victory Card.
>
> The currency for this auction shall be the coin.
>
> The procedure for this auction shall be a Forward Auction, as described by the
> April 2021 draft of the Treasuror's Auction Regulations which can be found at
> the following link:
>
> 

I've copied the message from that link to the bottom of this email.


2. Trigon's enactment of the regulations, dated 2021-05-05:

> On 4/27/21 1:06 AM, Trigon via agora-official wrote:
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to amend the following auction
>> regulations so that they read as follows.
>
> Having recieved support from Jason and ATMunn and no objections, I do so.



Arguments for the second CFJ:

If the first CFJ is TRUE, I see no reason the second shouldn't be
TRUE too. The auction rules make it clear that the auctioneer can
do this if the auction method allows it, and the auction method is
clear.

If the first CFJ is FALSE because the auction regulation can't
empower Trigon to revoke assets, then I think it comes down to the
interpretation of the following sentence from the draft regulation:

   In this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL destroy the amount
   to be paid from the inventory each awardee and transfer to that
   player (or create in eir possession if the item is new) the set
   of assets associated with the lot e won.

The form is: "the auctioneer CAN and SHALL do A and B". But if
we've established they can't do A, then they can't do A and B.

This is a bit ambiguous. Maybe the sentence has no effect since the
regulation is trying to empower the auctioneer to do something (A
and B together) that they can't. Or maybe it should be read as
authorizing the auctioneer to do A and also B.

However, even under the second interpretation, I still think it
would be FALSE, because R2545 requires the auction method to be
"generally recognizable ... as a fair, equitable, and timely
[method]". Winning just by being the last person to state a bigger
meaningless number than the last person, when a casual reading of
the the regulations wouldn't make it clear that's the goal, doesn't
seem fair.


Arguments for FALSE for the first CFJ:

Note that the auction began before the regulations were amended. This
may affect interpretation of the clause: "For the purposes of
interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if they
are defined in this rule.", which seems to refer specifically to
auction regulations.

Even if we do consider the new regulation text to have been in force, I
still think it should be FALSE. I think the following quotes from the
recent thread "[Treasuror] [Auction Regulations Proto] Rough Draft for
Redesign" summarise my position (I also included Trigon's reply).

Falsifian:

> Can an auction regulation give the auctioneer the power to destroy
> assets, as this text purports to do?
>
> As far as I can tell the only power this regulation has is that it adds
> some definitions. R2565 grants the auctioneer the power to "transfer
> said items as necessary..." but I think that's 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Fri 14 May 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[none]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
3903 G.
3904 ATMunn
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
[none]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3904 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 19 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3904
 An amendment that results in no net change of text in a rule is a
 rulechange, and the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of it.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Thu 06 May 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[none]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
3903 G.
3904 ATMunn
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
[none]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3904 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 19 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3904
 An amendment that results in no net change of text in a rule is a
 rulechange, and the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of it.

3903 Judged TRUE by G. [Wed 07 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3903
 R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
 were clearly specified.

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3904 Judged FALSE by ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3904
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3904  ===

  An amendment that results in no net change of text in a rule is a
  rulechange, and the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of it.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: ATMunn

==

History:

Called by Jason:  18 Apr 2021 19:07:19
Assigned to ATMunn:   19 Apr 2021 01:02:10
Judged TRUE by ATMunn:19 Apr 2021 18:01:21
Motion to reconsider self-filed:  19 Apr 2021 18:13:02
Judged FALSE by ATMunn:   19 Apr 2021 18:13:02

==

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 105/22 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

  When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
  generally:
[snip]
  4. amend the text of a rule.
[snip]
  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.


Rule 1681/23 (Power=1)
The Logical Rulesets [Excerpt]

  Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record
  and thereafter maintain a reasonably accurate historical
  annotation to the rule indicating:
1. The type of change.
2. The date on which the change took effect.
3. The mechanism that specified the change.
4. If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's
 ID number, author, and coauthor(s) (if any).


Caller's Arguments:

What it means to "amend" something is not explicitly defined in the
rules, so it has its common language meaning.

Definitions of "amendment":

Google: "a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of
legislation, etc."

Merriam-Webster online:

(1a): "the process of altering or amending a law or document (such
as a constitution) by parliamentary or constitutional procedure"

(1b): "an alteration proposed or effected by this process"

Dictionary.com: "an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill,
constitution, etc."


These all seem to suggest that an "amendment" requires something to
actually change.

Additionally, even if an amendment that results in no change is a rule
change, that does not imply that the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of
it. E is required to record "Whenever a rule is changed in any way", not
whenever there is a rule change.

--

Judge ATMunn's Arguments:

I find no flaws in or objections to the caller's arguments.

I judge CFJ 3904 FALSE.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 02 May 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[none]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
3903 G.
3904 ATMunn
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris, nix


OPEN CASES
---
[none]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3904 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 19 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3904
 An amendment that results in no net change of text in a rule is a
 rulechange, and the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of it.

3903 Judged TRUE by G. [Wed 07 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3903
 R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
 were clearly specified.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3904 Assigned to ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3904.  I assign it to ATMunn.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3904

===  CFJ 3904  ===

  An amendment that results in no net change of text in a rule is a
  rulechange, and the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of it.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: ATMunn

==

History:

Called by Jason:  18 Apr 2021 19:07:19
Assigned to ATMunn:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 105/22 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

  When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
  generally:
[snip]
  4. amend the text of a rule.
[snip]
  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.


Rule 1681/23 (Power=1)
The Logical Rulesets [Excerpt]

  Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record
  and thereafter maintain a reasonably accurate historical
  annotation to the rule indicating:
1. The type of change.
2. The date on which the change took effect.
3. The mechanism that specified the change.
4. If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's
 ID number, author, and coauthor(s) (if any).


Caller's Arguments:

What it means to "amend" something is not explicitly defined in the
rules, so it has its common language meaning.

Definitions of "amendment":

Google: "a minor change or addition designed to improve a text, piece of
legislation, etc."

Merriam-Webster online:

(1a): "the process of altering or amending a law or document (such
as a constitution) by parliamentary or constitutional procedure"

(1b): "an alteration proposed or effected by this process"

Dictionary.com: "an alteration of or addition to a motion, bill,
constitution, etc."


These all seem to suggest that an "amendment" requires something to
actually change.

Additionally, even if an amendment that results in no change is a rule
change, that does not imply that the Rulekeepor shall keep a record of
it. E is required to record "Whenever a rule is changed in any way", not
whenever there is a rule change.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3903 Judged TRUE by G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3903
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3903  ===

  R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
  were clearly specified.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: G.
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by Jason:  29 Mar 2021 04:08:30
Assigned to G.:   04 Apr 2021 00:32:16
Judged TRUE by G.:07 Apr 2021 18:47:01

==

Caller's arguments:

On the relevant decisions, R. Lee voted "I vote AGAINST all agoran
decisions that add overall text to the ruleset, and PRESENT on the
rest." This is clearly an attempted conditional vote. The question is
whether it is clearly specified under Rule 2127.

Per Rule 2127, they are clearly specified if and only if they were
determinate at the end of the voting period, and they are determinate if
the values can be "reasonably determined [...] from information
reasonably available" (the other possibilities clearly do not apply).

The information that this depends on is certainly "reasonably
available", as it is just the text of the proposals as well as the text
of the rules (assuming we are correct in our understanding of the text
of the rules, which is hopefully the case). This means that this case
depends on whether the vote can be "reasonably determined" from that
information.

In general, evaluating proposals to determine whether they add or remove
text is arguably not "reasonably determined", as it involves evaluating
potentially arbitrary text. However, real distributions do not contain
proposals with arbitrary text, and the proposals in this specific
distribution are, individually, relatively easy to count characters
added/removed on. Perhaps that's sufficient for this specific case to be
considered "reasonable effort", but that's potentially opening a can of
worms for large, perhaps unreasonable, workloads for the Assessor.


Caller's evidence:

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:16 PM N. S. via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> I vote AGAINST all agoran decisions that add overall text to the ruleset,
> and PRESENT on the rest.


Rule 2127/11 (Power=3)
Conditional Votes

  A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which indicates
  a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is evaluated
  at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of
  the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
  period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to
  a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted
  as PRESENT.
   Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if
   is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that
  evaluates as specified.
   A vote endorsing another person is equivalent to a conditional
  vote evaluating to the vote specified in that person's valid
  ballot on the decision, if any.
   For an instant runoff decision, a vote consisting of a list, one
  or more entries of which are valid conditional votes, and the
  remaining entries of which are valid options, is a valid
  conditional vote. Such a vote is evaluated by evaluating each
  conditional entry to a list of votes (or an empty list, if it
  evaluates to PRESENT either directly or indirectly), and then
  concatenating those lists with the specified valid options in the
  order they occurred in the original vote.


Rule 2518/0 (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.

--

Judge G.'s Arguments:

In the past, we've accepted many complicated conditionals.  In principle,
I don't see why "does this specified proposal add text to ruleset" is more
complicated or error-prone than, say "I vote for the candidate who
transfers me the most coins" in terms of difficulty to the vote collector.

For the latter, for example, the vote collector would need to track any
coin transfer, look at recent reports to know if the transfers succeeded,
and maybe even (if the transfers had previous transfer dependencies) track
more.  And errors would be made.  Yet I suspect we would accept such a
conditional without thinking 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 18 Apr 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[none]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
[none]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3903 Judged TRUE by G. [Wed 07 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3903
 R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
 were clearly specified.

3902 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 28 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3902
 Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
 root".

3901 Judged PARADOXICAL by Gaelan [Sat 20 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 11 Apr 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[none]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
[none]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3903 Judged TRUE by G. [Wed 07 Apr 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3903
 R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
 were clearly specified.

3902 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 28 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3902
 Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
 root".

3901 Judged PARADOXICAL by Gaelan [Sat 20 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.

OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 3903 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

On 4/3/2021 5:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3903.  I assign it to G.
> 
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3903
> 
> ===  CFJ 3903  ===
> 
>   R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
>   were clearly specified.
> 
> ==

I judge CFJ 3903 as follows (no major difference from proto):

In the past, we've accepted many complicated conditionals.  In principle,
I don't see why "does this specified proposal add text to ruleset" is more
complicated or error-prone than, say "I vote for the candidate who
transfers me the most coins" in terms of difficulty to the vote collector.

For the latter, for example, the vote collector would need to track any
coin transfer, look at recent reports to know if the transfers succeeded,
and maybe even (if the transfers had previous transfer dependencies) track
more.  And errors would be made.  Yet I suspect we would accept such a
conditional without thinking about it too much and the poor officer would
be on the hook.

So I don't think we can throw out proposal parsing for conditionals just
because they're proposals or rule changes, or else if we do, we'd throw
out many conditionals that we've accepted in the past.

As an example, looking at one of the proposals in question (8549), the
proposal is of the form "insert after [text] the following [other text]".
I looked up the rule, checked the power, and knew that the proposal in
question would increase the words in any of the rulesets.  3-5 minutes,
and fewer references to check than the coin thing.  And probably less
prone to error than the coin thing.

So in principle, proposals aren't special.  Some are harder to interpret
than others in the name of interpreting conditionals,  That's evaluated
case-by-case - it doesn't force evaluation of "arbitrary" text - some
proposals, just like some conditionals, could be "too hard", but it's
case-by-case).

Now, some of the ones in this batch may be too difficult - but the caller
notes that they're not.  Having looked over them for 5 minutes, I conclude
similarly - these are not difficult tasks.  TRUE.

I'll note that what's easy in the individual is often difficult in the
aggregate, but that's a matter of social restraint.  Doing too many
blanket conditionals is similar to submitting lots of proposals and not
pending them, or calling and retracting lots of cfjs, or whatever.  I
don't think a blanket cfj-ban based on the reasonableness of each one (and
these in particular are reasonable) is an appropriate way of handling
that, if it becomes an actual issue.

However, I'll futher note that, given the nature of cumulative effort, the
effort for each individual conditional needs to be truly fairly small.
The standard I'd suggest is that the conditional must be clear and obvious
within a minute or two of checking on facts.  So a proposal that
repeals a rule (requiring a word count), or has more than one add or
subtract clause so character count had to be tracked, would be too much.

-G.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 04 Apr 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3903 Assigned to G.  Due Sun 11 Apr 2021 00:32:16


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
 nix
3894 Jason
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
3903 G.
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
3903 Assigned to G. [Due Sun 11 Apr 2021 00:32:16]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3903
 R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
 were clearly specified.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3902 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 28 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3902
 Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
 root".

3901 Judged PARADOXICAL by Gaelan [Sat 20 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.

3900 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 08 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3900
 Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
 and EFFECTIVE.

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3902 Judged FALSE by Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3902
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3902  ===

  Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
  root".

==

Caller:G.

Judge: Murphy
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by G.: 19 Mar 2021 22:12:09
Assigned to Murphy:   25 Mar 2021 19:31:09
Judged FALSE by Murphy:   28 Mar 2021 18:13:44

==

Caller's Arguments:

R2029/0 as initially adopted (in 2002) included the text "by Goethe,
Steve, Murphy, root".  In 2017, a search/replace of the history section
erroneously replaced "Goethe" with "G." in subsequent published copies.

In the 24 Feb 2019 SLR publication, the rule appeared as follows:

> Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
> Town Fountain
>
>/\   /\
>/ \ / \
>   T
>  his
>Power-04
> Rule (the first ever)
>  was placed to honor
> The Agoran  Spirit Of The Game
> by G., Steve, Murphy, root
> and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
> on our works, ye Marvy, but do
>always Dance a Powerful Dance.  Hail Eris!

Proposal 8175 (adopted 08 May 2019) ratified the 24 Feb 2019 SLR using
this text:

> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 24th of February,
> 2019, available here [1].
>
> [1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012797.html

Assuming the ratification changed the text itself (from "Goethe" to "G.")
there are at least two possibilities for revision number:

1.  The ratification ratified that the original 2029/0 has the new text.

2.  The ratification changed the rule text, and that incremented the
revision number, leaving 2029/0 as containing "Goethe", and 2029/1
containing "G."

Gratuitous addition:

3.  A third possibility is more worrying. If any change of text results in
a new revision number (by common definition), then an attempt to change
rules text via ratification of an SLR (with revision numbers) would fail
as per R1551, as it would "add inconsistencies between the gamestate and
the rules". This would mean that any time a ratification would have
actually changed rules text, it instead failed, leaving the current SLR
state rather uncertain.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:


Abstractly, the situation is as follows:

   * Just before time T, rule R had body B0 and revision number R0.

   * Document D alleges that, at time T, rule R had body B1 and revision
 number R1.

   * At time T+Y, document D is ratified.

Past interpretation has been in line with possibility #2. But were we
wrong all along about that?

Relevant clauses from Rule 1551:

   When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified,
   rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified
   to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
   published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
   ratified document as true and accurate as possible; ...

... If no such modification is
   possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible
   modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification
   fails.

Within the evaluation of this hypothetical, the ratified document need
not be /completely/ true, just "as true and accurate as possible". Past
practice thus amounts to implicitly interpreting this as "as true and
accurate as possible without violating the subsequent restrictions":

   * Within the evaluation of this hypothetical, at time T, rule R had
 body B1, even if its revision number was still R0.

   * Thus, at time T+Y, rule R comes to have body B1, and revision
 number (whatever it was just before time T+Y) + 1.

In the interest of avoiding possibility #3, I find this interpretation
reasonable, and judge FALSE; this ratification did not retroactively
change the text of revision number 0, instead it created a new revision
number 1. That said, it's enough of a stretch to warrant legislative
clarification (proto coming up shortly).

Judge's evidence:

Here are all changes to still-existing rules attributed to "SLR
ratification" in the most recent FLR.

Rule 105/22 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
Amended(9) by SLR ratification, 01 May 2014
which was done by Proposal 7638:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-May/010672.html

Rule 2154/59 (Power=2)
Election Procedure

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3903 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3903.  I assign it to G.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3903

===  CFJ 3903  ===

  R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals 8549 and 8552-8555
  were clearly specified.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by Jason:  29 Mar 2021 04:08:30
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

Caller's arguments:

On the relevant decisions, R. Lee voted "I vote AGAINST all agoran
decisions that add overall text to the ruleset, and PRESENT on the
rest." This is clearly an attempted conditional vote. The question is
whether it is clearly specified under Rule 2127.

Per Rule 2127, they are clearly specified if and only if they were
determinate at the end of the voting period, and they are determinate if
the values can be "reasonably determined [...] from information
reasonably available" (the other possibilities clearly do not apply).

The information that this depends on is certainly "reasonably
available", as it is just the text of the proposals as well as the text
of the rules (assuming we are correct in our understanding of the text
of the rules, which is hopefully the case). This means that this case
depends on whether the vote can be "reasonably determined" from that
information.

In general, evaluating proposals to determine whether they add or remove
text is arguably not "reasonably determined", as it involves evaluating
potentially arbitrary text. However, real distributions do not contain
proposals with arbitrary text, and the proposals in this specific
distribution are, individually, relatively easy to count characters
added/removed on. Perhaps that's sufficient for this specific case to be
considered "reasonable effort", but that's potentially opening a can of
worms for large, perhaps unreasonable, workloads for the Assessor.


Caller's evidence:

On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 5:16 PM N. S. via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> I vote AGAINST all agoran decisions that add overall text to the ruleset,
> and PRESENT on the rest.


Rule 2127/11 (Power=3)
Conditional Votes

  A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which indicates
  a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is evaluated
  at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of
  the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
  period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to
  a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted
  as PRESENT.
   Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if
   is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that
  evaluates as specified.
   A vote endorsing another person is equivalent to a conditional
  vote evaluating to the vote specified in that person's valid
  ballot on the decision, if any.
   For an instant runoff decision, a vote consisting of a list, one
  or more entries of which are valid conditional votes, and the
  remaining entries of which are valid options, is a valid
  conditional vote. Such a vote is evaluated by evaluating each
  conditional entry to a list of votes (or an empty list, if it
  evaluates to PRESENT either directly or indirectly), and then
  concatenating those lists with the specified valid options in the
  order they occurred in the original vote.


Rule 2518/0 (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.

==

OFF: Re: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of Cuddlebeam

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Sorry - The voting on the below ended ~30 min ago (14 days after voting
opened).  Just plain ol' forgot.

I point a finger at myself for failure to issue a humiliating public
reminder for the first decision.

Voting resolution:

02-A:
FOR:  Jason, Falsifian.
PRESENT:  Murphy (Endorsed a non-voter)
Voters:  3
Result:  FAILED QUORUM

02-B.
FOR:  Falsifian.
PRESENT:  Jason, Murphy (Endorsed a non-voter)
Voters:  3
Result:  FAILED QUORUM


On 3/15/2021 9:36 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> Indictment Decision 02-A
> Resolved:  That Cuddlebeam be convicted (found guilty) for Oathbreaking
> (pledge cited in evidence).
> 
> Indictment Decision 02-B
> Resolved:  That the indictment fine of 3 blots, as issued by the Referee,
> be accepted.
> 
> I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions.  Each
> decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5.  The vote
> collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 4, valid options are FOR and
> AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).
> 
> Ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following meaning:
> 
> (FOR, FOR)
> Guilty, and 3 blots is an appropriate penalty.
> 
> (FOR, AGAINST)
> Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower).
> 
> (AGAINST, FOR)
> Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, 3 blots is appropriate.
> 
> (AGAINST, AGAINST)
> Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue a different penalty.
> 
> 
> EVIDENCE
> 
> On 2/8/21 6:07 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
>> I Point a Finger at Cuddlebeam for the crime of Oathbreaking for
>> breaking the Oath made below.
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:04 AM Cuddle Beam 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I pledge to give all of my VPs to Gaelan within 10 seconds of this
>>> message being published, with an N of Oathbreaking of 0.
> 
> 
> STATEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION
> (by the Referee)
> 
>> I issue an Indictment against Cuddlebeam for the above violation,
>> specifying a fine of 3 blots.
>>
>> I argue the Cuddlebeam ought to be convicted of this indictment because
>> e has clearly violated Rule 2450 - e has even pointed eir finger at
>> emself for doing so, meaning e has admitted the violation. In addition,
>> this was clearly done in an attempt to earn a Justice card for having
>> the most finger-pointings be resolved without Shenanigans, under Rule
>> 2478. The fine of 3 blots is appropriate in order to discourage em from
>> attempting such a stunt again, and to send a stern message to all
>> Agorans that such simple attempts to illegally profit must not be
>> tolerated.
> 
> 
> STATEMENT FOR THE DEFENSE:
> 
> On 3/8/2021 1:02 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
>>  In my defense, I believe that the honorable Referee is being far too
>> generous. I insist that my punishment must be at least 20 blots, with a
>> further 10 blot penalty re-applied every month as community service so
>> that I can help propel the stagnant Justice Card economy and make amends
>> to the poor Agoran community. Only with a punishment of this magnitude -
>> and dare I say that even this much is almost insufficient - can true
>> Justice be imparted and the hearts of Agoran hearts all over the world
>> be put at peace.
>>
>> I rest my case.
> 
> 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Thu 25 Mar 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3902 Assigned to Murphy  Due Thu 01 Apr 2021 19:31:09


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
3902 Murphy
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
3902 Assigned to Murphy [Due Thu 01 Apr 2021 19:31:09]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3902
 Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
 root".


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3901 Judged PARADOXICAL by Gaelan [Sat 20 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.

3900 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 08 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3900
 Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
 and EFFECTIVE.

3899 Judged TRUE by Falsifian [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899
 No emergency regulations are in place.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3902 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3902.  I assign it to Murphy.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3902

===  CFJ 3902  ===

  Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
  root".

==

Caller:G.

Judge: Murphy

==

History:

Called by G.: 19 Mar 2021 22:12:09
Assigned to Murphy:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

R2029/0 as initially adopted (in 2002) included the text "by Goethe,
Steve, Murphy, root".  In 2017, a search/replace of the history section
erroneously replaced "Goethe" with "G." in subsequent published copies.

In the 24 Feb 2019 SLR publication, the rule appeared as follows:

> Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
> Town Fountain
>
>/\   /\
>/ \ / \
>   T
>  his
>Power-04
> Rule (the first ever)
>  was placed to honor
> The Agoran  Spirit Of The Game
> by G., Steve, Murphy, root
> and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
> on our works, ye Marvy, but do
>always Dance a Powerful Dance.  Hail Eris!

Proposal 8175 (adopted 08 May 2019) ratified the 24 Feb 2019 SLR using
this text:

> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 24th of February,
> 2019, available here [1].
>
> [1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012797.html

Assuming the ratification changed the text itself (from "Goethe" to "G.")
there are at least two possibilities for revision number:

1.  The ratification ratified that the original 2029/0 has the new text.

2.  The ratification changed the rule text, and that incremented the
revision number, leaving 2029/0 as containing "Goethe", and 2029/1
containing "G."

Gratuitous addition:

3.  A third possibility is more worrying. If any change of text results in
a new revision number (by common definition), then an attempt to change
rules text via ratification of an SLR (with revision numbers) would fail
as per R1551, as it would "add inconsistencies between the gamestate and
the rules". This would mean that any time a ratification would have
actually changed rules text, it instead failed, leaving the current SLR
state rather uncertain.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3901 Judged PARADOXICAL by Gaelan

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3901  ===

  The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
  EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
  on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
  R208, R879, and/or R2623.

==

Caller:G.

Judge: Gaelan
Judgement: PARADOXICAL

==

History:

Called by G.: 28 Feb 2021 23:59:40
Assigned to Gaelan:   07 Mar 2021 19:16:30
Judged PARADOXICAL by Gaelan: 20 Mar 2021 20:14:03

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 2/28/2021 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I grant myself a promise, "Neverending PRESENT", with the following text:
>1. I grant myself a new promise with a text identical to the text of
>   the "Neverending PRESENT" promise.
>2. If I have cast a non-withdrawn ballot on the referendum to adopt
>   Proposal 8543, I withdraw it; otherwise I vote PRESENT
>   (unconditionally) on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543.
>3. I cash the new promise.
> 
> 
> I cash the above-created promise.

The above message was sent via agora-business before the voting period on
the proposal 8543 referendum ended.  This CFJ was called immediately after
the voting period ended and before any attempt at resolving the referendum
was published.  Quorum was met by other voters regardless of this ballot.


Caller's Arguments:

For the purpose of cashing a single instance of the above promise, every
step should be determinate (and the conditional in step #2
well-determined), so the cashing should succeed and have the effects
described in its text.

Collectively, I believe this makes the status of my ballot indeterminate
(alternating infinitely between being cast and not) and therefore make
this CFJ PARADOXICAL.  It is not irrelevant even if the proposal is
resolved by publishing two separate announcements (one for each state), as
the resolution method propagates to affecting the vote count for quorum
and/or popularity.

Even if the gamestate was converged after the calling of this CFJ (e.g. by
resolving a proposal batch in a different-than-typical order to prevent
it from affecting future quorum), the fact that it took a positive effort
on the part of the Assessor to do so meant that it certainly was relevant
at the time this CFJ was called.  Further, I think, as a general
principle, that votes are part of the historical legislative record, and
ballots are prima facie relevant even if they don't change an outcome.

--

Judge Gaelan's Arguments:

At question is a promise that purports to recursively create and cash a
promise with identical text, causing G's vote on proposal 8543 to
fluctuate indefinitely between two values.

# What does it mean to cash a promise?

2618/2: { A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise,
provided that any conditions for cashing it specified by its text are
unambiguously met. By doing so, e acts on the creator of the promise's
behalf, causing the creator to act as if e published the promise's text,
and destroys the promise. }

# Can a promise create a promise?

Promise creation is permitted by 2618/2: { A consenting player CAN, by
announcement, grant a specified entity a promise, specifying its text and
becoming its creator. }

G. is a player, and 2519/2 explicitly states that a player consents to an
action if { the action is taken as part of a promise which e created }; no
issues there. What about the "by announcement, specifying its text" bit?
If G. just published the text of the promise, it'd certainly qualify, so
"act[ing] as if e published the promise's text" should work fine.

No issues here.

# Can a promise cash a promise?

Sure, it's by announcement. We've already seen that works.

# Wait, can you cash your own promises at all?

This one's interesting. 2466/2 only gives the phrase "acting on behalf"
any special meaning when it's on behalf of another person, so "acting on
one's own behalf" doesn't really have any special meaning or significance.
By a plain-English reading, acting on one's behalf to do something is just
doing the thing. So I think this works just fine.

# What about that conditional in the promise?

Good question, heading. Agora's support for conditional actions is
famously not specified by the rules, only precedent, rooting from 478/38's
definition of performing an a

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Thu 18 Mar 2021


DEADLINES
---
3901 Assigned to Gaelan  OVERDUE Sun 14 Mar 2021 19:16:30


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
3901 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Sun 14 Mar 2021 19:16:30]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3900 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 08 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3900
 Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
 and EFFECTIVE.

3899 Judged TRUE by Falsifian [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899
 No emergency regulations are in place.

OFF: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of Cuddlebeam

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Indictment Decision 02-A
Resolved:  That Cuddlebeam be convicted (found guilty) for Oathbreaking
(pledge cited in evidence).

Indictment Decision 02-B
Resolved:  That the indictment fine of 3 blots, as issued by the Referee,
be accepted.

I hereby initiate a referendum on each of the above Decisions.  Each
decision has a voting method of AI-majority, with AI=1.5.  The vote
collector is the Arbitor, the quorum is 4, valid options are FOR and
AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).

Ordered pairs of votes for (A,B) above have the following meaning:

(FOR, FOR)
Guilty, and 3 blots is an appropriate penalty.

(FOR, AGAINST)
Guilty, but issue a different penalty (higher or lower).

(AGAINST, FOR)
Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, 3 blots is appropriate.

(AGAINST, AGAINST)
Not Guilty, but if found guilty by total votes, issue a different penalty.


EVIDENCE

On 2/8/21 6:07 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I Point a Finger at Cuddlebeam for the crime of Oathbreaking for
> breaking the Oath made below.
>
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 12:04 AM Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
>
>> I pledge to give all of my VPs to Gaelan within 10 seconds of this
>> message being published, with an N of Oathbreaking of 0.


STATEMENT FOR THE PROSECUTION
(by the Referee)

> I issue an Indictment against Cuddlebeam for the above violation,
> specifying a fine of 3 blots.
>
> I argue the Cuddlebeam ought to be convicted of this indictment because
> e has clearly violated Rule 2450 - e has even pointed eir finger at
> emself for doing so, meaning e has admitted the violation. In addition,
> this was clearly done in an attempt to earn a Justice card for having
> the most finger-pointings be resolved without Shenanigans, under Rule
> 2478. The fine of 3 blots is appropriate in order to discourage em from
> attempting such a stunt again, and to send a stern message to all
> Agorans that such simple attempts to illegally profit must not be
> tolerated.


STATEMENT FOR THE DEFENSE:

On 3/8/2021 1:02 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
>  In my defense, I believe that the honorable Referee is being far too
> generous. I insist that my punishment must be at least 20 blots, with a
> further 10 blot penalty re-applied every month as community service so
> that I can help propel the stagnant Justice Card economy and make amends
> to the poor Agoran community. Only with a punishment of this magnitude -
> and dare I say that even this much is almost insufficient - can true
> Justice be imparted and the hearts of Agoran hearts all over the world
> be put at peace.
>
> I rest my case.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Fri 12 Mar 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3901 Assigned to Gaelan  Due Sun 14 Mar 2021 19:16:30


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
3901 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Sun 14 Mar 2021 19:16:30]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3900 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 08 Mar 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3900
 Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
 and EFFECTIVE.

3899 Judged TRUE by Falsifian [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899
 No emergency regulations are in place.

3897 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3897
 Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

3896 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3896
 If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
 it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
 Nomic".

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3900 Judged FALSE by ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3900
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3900  ===

  Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
  and EFFECTIVE.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: ATMunn
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Jason:  23 Feb 2021 04:28:57
Assigned to ATMunn:   26 Feb 2021 00:08:14
Judged FALSE by ATMunn:   08 Mar 2021 15:02:46

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 2/14/21 11:25 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
>  > I intend, without objection, to amend Rule 2463 (Motion of No
>  > Confidence) by replacing "Motions of confidence" with "Motions of no
>  > confidence".
>
> Having received no objection, I do so.


Rule 2221/8 (Power=3)
Cleanliness and Tidy Filing

  Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
  more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
  and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
  place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
  rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.
Any player CAN refile a rule without objection, specifying a new
  title; the rule is retitled to the specified title by this rule.


Caller's Arguments:

The attempted change was an attempt to change the referent of rules text
from an undefined term to a defined term. This is not a spelling,
capitalization, formatting, or grammar change or a change in
abbreviation, and there is not really a strong argument for it to be a
dialect change.

I am not aware of any other reason that the attempt would be INEFFECTIVE.

--

Judge ATMunn's Arguments:

Per the caller's arguments, I judge CFJ 3900 FALSE.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 07 Mar 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3900 Assigned to ATMunn  OVERDUE Fri 05 Mar 2021 00:08:14
3901 Assigned to Gaelan  Due Sun 14 Mar 2021 19:16:30


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy
3900 ATMunn
3901 Gaelan
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris


OPEN CASES
---
3901 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Sun 14 Mar 2021 19:16:30]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3901
 The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
 EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
 on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
 R208, R879, and/or R2623.

3900 Assigned to ATMunn [Due Fri 05 Mar 2021 00:08:14]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3900
 Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
 and EFFECTIVE.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3899 Judged TRUE by Falsifian [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899
 No emergency regulations are in place.

3898 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sat 06 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3898
 The time at which an intent to do something without objection
 becomes resolvable is a deadline.

3897 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3897
 Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

3896 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3896
 If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
 it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
 Nomic".

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3901 Assigned to Gaelan

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3901.  I assign it to Gaelan.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901

===  CFJ 3901  ===

  The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
  EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
  on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
  R208, R879, and/or R2623.

==

Caller:G.

Judge: Gaelan

==

History:

Called by G.: 28 Feb 2021 23:59:40
Assigned to Gaelan:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 2/28/2021 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I grant myself a promise, "Neverending PRESENT", with the following text:
>1. I grant myself a new promise with a text identical to the text of
>   the "Neverending PRESENT" promise.
>2. If I have cast a non-withdrawn ballot on the referendum to adopt
>   Proposal 8543, I withdraw it; otherwise I vote PRESENT
>   (unconditionally) on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543.
>3. I cash the new promise.
> 
> 
> I cash the above-created promise.

The above message was sent via agora-business before the voting period on
the proposal 8543 referendum ended.  This CFJ was called immediately after
the voting period ended and before any attempt at resolving the referendum
was published.  Quorum was met by other voters regardless of this ballot.


Caller's Arguments:

For the purpose of cashing a single instance of the above promise, every
step should be determinate (and the conditional in step #2
well-determined), so the cashing should succeed and have the effects
described in its text.

Collectively, I believe this makes the status of my ballot indeterminate
(alternating infinitely between being cast and not) and therefore make
this CFJ PARADOXICAL.  It is not irrelevant even if the proposal is
resolved by publishing two separate announcements (one for each state), as
the resolution method propagates to affecting the vote count for quorum
and/or popularity.

Even if the gamestate was converged after the calling of this CFJ (e.g. by
resolving a proposal batch in a different-than-typical order to prevent
it from affecting future quorum), the fact that it took a positive effort
on the part of the Assessor to do so meant that it certainly was relevant
at the time this CFJ was called.  Further, I think, as a general
principle, that votes are part of the historical legislative record, and
ballots are prima facie relevant even if they don't change an outcome.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Fri 26 Feb 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3900 Assigned to ATMunn  Due Fri 05 Mar 2021 00:08:14


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3893 Gaelan
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy
3900 ATMunn

Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3900 Assigned to ATMunn [Due Fri 05 Mar 2021 00:08:14]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3900
 Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
 and EFFECTIVE.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3899 Judged TRUE by Falsifian [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899
 No emergency regulations are in place.

3898 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sat 06 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3898
 The time at which an intent to do something without objection
 becomes resolvable is a deadline.

3897 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3897
 Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

3896 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3896
 If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
 it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
 Nomic".

3895 Judged FALSE by Aris [Wed 03 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3895
 I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

3894 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 31 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3894
 The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
 "No Faking".

3893 Judged FALSE by Gaelan [Thu 04 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3893
 There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3900 Assigned to ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3900.  I assign it to ATMunn.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3900

===  CFJ 3900  ===

  Murphy's most recent attempted cleaning of Rule 2463 was POSSIBLE
  and EFFECTIVE.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: ATMunn

==

History:

Called by Jason:  23 Feb 2021 04:28:57
Assigned to ATMunn:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 2/14/21 11:25 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
>  > I intend, without objection, to amend Rule 2463 (Motion of No
>  > Confidence) by replacing "Motions of confidence" with "Motions of no
>  > confidence".
>
> Having received no objection, I do so.


Rule 2221/8 (Power=3)
Cleanliness and Tidy Filing

  Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
  more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
  and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
  place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
  rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.
Any player CAN refile a rule without objection, specifying a new
  title; the rule is retitled to the specified title by this rule.


Caller's Arguments:

The attempted change was an attempt to change the referent of rules text
from an undefined term to a defined term. This is not a spelling,
capitalization, formatting, or grammar change or a change in
abbreviation, and there is not really a strong argument for it to be a
dialect change.

I am not aware of any other reason that the attempt would be INEFFECTIVE.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3899 Judged TRUE by Falsifian

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3899
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3899  ===

  No emergency regulations are in place.

==

Caller:Gaelan
Barred:G. (filed with Referee)

Judge: Falsifian
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by Gaelan: 07 Feb 2021 15:32:46
Assigned to Falsifian:10 Feb 2021 15:15:03
Motion to extend filed:   16 Feb 2021 04:45:41
Judged TRUE by Falsifian: 23 Feb 2021 18:47:12

==

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2614/6 (Power=3.1)
Eclipse Light

  [...]
  The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran
  consent, enact, amend, or repeal Emergency Regulations, provided
  that the intent to do so was also contained in an emergency
  message. [...]

Rule 1006/44 (Power=2)
Offices

  An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
  Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with
  possible values of any person or "vacant" (default). [...]

Rule 2518/0 (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.

Rule 2162/13 (Power=3)
Switches
[...] If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
  possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an
  action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of
  that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead
  takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any,
  otherwise it takes on its default value. [...]

Regulation ER4/0
The Second Regulation of G.ravity

 The LAWS OF G.RAVITY is a document that:
 1. is labelled LAWS OF G.RAVITY;
 2. has the following SHA-256 hash:
d47fb31e9c0c29fa1295371e0938335ae1f917306d59cd593a42f44d4ce39c5e
 and 3. has had its SHA-256 hash calculated by G. on or before
02-Feb-2021.

 G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to perform any
 action that emergency regulations CAN perform as per Rule 2614,
 except for any action explicitly described as IMPOSSIBLE by the
 LAWS of G.RAVITY.

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2614/5 allows the Prime Minster to repeal emergency regulations with
3 Agoran Consent, provided that both the intent and the final action were
sent in an emergency message. ATMunn declared the intent to repeal G's
regulations four days ago in an emergency message. Jason supported, and
nobody objected. Today, in another emergency message, e did so. The only
question that remains is whether ATMunn was Prime Minister.

G. attempted to prevent this by using emergency regulation ER4 to remove
ATMunn from the office of Prime Minister. ER4 allows G. to cause the
regulation to perform any action it is permitted to preform, provided that
eir doing so is not prohibited by a document known as the LAWS of G.RAVITY.
This document has not been made public.

Officeholder is a switch, and therefore subject to Rule 2162's determinacy
protections. To determine the value of Officeholder after G's message
purporting to flip it with ER4, one would need to know whether it is
prohibited by the LAWS of G.RAVITY. Because that document is not public, the
value of this switch "CANNOT be reasonably determined... from information
reasonably available". Therefore, G.'s message would have caused
Officeholder to become indeterminate. 2162's protection kicks in, and the
switch "takes on its last determinate and possible value", ATMunn.
Therefore, ATMunn is the Prime Minister, and the emergency regulations were
successfully repealed.

--

Judge Falsifian's Arguments:

I judge CFJ 3899 TRUE. This judgement is based on the below reasoning,
which is in turn based on the Caller's arguments.


# Timeline

Here are some events relevant to the case.

2021-02-02 22:27:

  G. enacts two Emergency Regulations, called the First and Second
  Regulation of G.ravity. The caller's evidence includes the text of
  the second one.

2021-02-03 15:16

  ATMunn announces intent to repeal all Emergency Regulations:

> I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to repeal all existing Emergency
> Regulations.

2021-02-03 15:22

  G. purports to remove ATMunn from the office of Prime Minister, and
  then to appoint emself in eir 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 21 Feb 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[CFJ 3899 is being handled by the referee, but will be added to the CotC
database once closed.  Falsifian's judgment is due 11 Feb 2021 07:15:03]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3892 ATMunn
3893 Gaelan
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy

Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
[CFJ 3899 is open - see note above].


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3898 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sat 06 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3898
 The time at which an intent to do something without objection
 becomes resolvable is a deadline.

3897 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3897
 Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

3896 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 10 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3896
 If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
 it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
 Nomic".

3895 Judged FALSE by Aris [Wed 03 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3895
 I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

3894 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 31 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3894
 The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
 "No Faking".

3893 Judged FALSE by Gaelan [Thu 04 Feb 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3893
 There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3896 Judged FALSE by G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3896
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3896  ===

  If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
  it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
  Nomic".

==

Caller:Aris

Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Aris:   01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.:   03 Feb 2021 17:26:24
Judged FALSE by G.:   10 Feb 2021 14:14:49

==

Caller's Arguments:

[linked to CFJ 3897]

A proposal that would destroy Agora would be canceled by AiaN. After
all, proposals that would otherwise "cause Agora to cease to exist"
are explicitly listed among the categories of proposals that AiaN
blocks. The question, then, is whether the proposal would, but for
AiaN, successfully cause Agora to cease to exist. If causing Agora to
cease to exist would involve repealing more than one rule, the action
would fail per Rule 105, which requires that the order of rule changes
be unambiguous. If it could be done without changes to the rules, I
honestly have no clue whether another rule would block it from
happening.

CFJ 3580 is relevant, since it discusses the behavior of legal
fictions with respect to AiaN.

--

Judge G.'s Arguments:

As per CFJ 3580, the first thing is to determine for a broad action text
like this: if the command "destory Agora" were executed, what would
actually be affected?

What exactly is Agora (that is, what is it that would actually be
destroyed?)  That's found explicitly in R101:

> Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
> with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of
> these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be
> won, but the game never ends.
>
> Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.

Persons and Fora are external (so might be destoyed by "destroy the
universe" but not by a "destroy Agora").  So that leaves that Agora is a
game.  What does it mean to "destroy" a game, in particular a game of
nomic?  There are two reasonable definitions that I see for "destroy" in
the context of games:

1.  Destroying all the rules - that would pretty much destroy Agora as
Agora (even if some kind of common law could be inferred after that, it's
pretty much no longer Agora if done that way).  "Destroy the rules" is
reasonably synonymous for repealing them.  R105 protects against
simultaneous mass repeals; the order that rules are repealed needs to be
specified.  Therefore, R105 blocks any rules from being repealed under a
"destroy Agora" clause.

2.  End the game - Games for the most part end.  That would destroy all
gameplay beyond that.  So to end Agora is to destroy it.  But R101 states
"the game never ends".  I find that this clause in R101 is protective and
generally (to the maximum extent of R101's power) prevents the game from
ending.  This serves as an "except as prohibited by the rules" that
prevents proposal clauses from taking effect (however that's worded under
bodies of law).  So destroy Agora -> end the game -> blocked from taking
effect by R101.

Therefore, a clause in an ephemeral instrument purporting to "destroy
Agora" is blocked from having any effect, by either or both of R105 and
R101, meaning R1698 is never triggered in Agora's defense.  FALSE.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3898 Judged FALSE by Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3898
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3898  ===

  The time at which an intent to do something without objection
  becomes resolvable is a deadline.

==

Caller:Jason
Barred:G.

Judge: Murphy
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Jason:  03 Feb 2021 02:25:25
Assigned to Murphy:   03 Feb 2021 17:31:34
Judged FALSE by Murphy:   06 Feb 2021 23:08:19

==

Caller's Arguments:

On 2/2/21 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> The following Emergency Regulation, The First Regulation of G.ravity,
> is enacted:
>
>   A pausable intent is any announcement of intent for performing a
>   dependent action either without N objections, with N Agoran consent,
>   with notice, or with T notice.
>
>   G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to extend the prior
>   deadline, provided for in Rule 2595(3), for performing a dependent
>   action based on a specified pausable intent (i.e. change the
>   time between intent announcement and the enabling of the
>   performance of the specified dependent action), to 14 days.

That time does not seem to fit the natural language meaning of the word
"deadline".

Definition from Google: "the latest time or date by which something
should be completed."

Definition from Merriam-Webster online: "a date or time before which
something must be done"

Definition from Dictionary.com: "the time by which something must be
finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something" or "a
line or limit that must not be passed."

In all of these definitions, something must become impossible - either
an action or the fulfillment of an obligation. For an intent resolution,
nothing becomes DISABLED or ILLEGAL when the intent becomes resolvable -
instead something becomes ENABLED. A close analogy seems to be the start
of a voting period - I would not say that the start is a deadline, only
the end.

A counterargument could be that the time when it becomes resolvable is
the deadline for people to get objections in while they can be sure they
can be heard. This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The start of the resolution period also does not fulfill any of the
criteria specifically listed in the rule - no action must be done before
the resolution period for it to be "valid" - objections are just as
valid after the intent is resolvable (when it will still have effect),
or even after it is resolved (when it is still an objection, and will
prevent repeated resolutions), nor is there generally any obligation for
something to be done before an intent becomes resolvable.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2614/5 (Power=3.01)
Eclipse Light [Excerpt]

- Extend any deadline provided for by any instrument other than
  this rule, including a deadline for an obligation to be met,
  or deadline prior to which an action must be performed in
  order to be valid, such as the end of voting period. Such an
  extension CANNOT cause the total time period, such as the
  time from when an obligation was created to the deadline or
  the whole of a voting period, to be more than double its
  original length.

--

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On 2/2/2021 6:25 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
> 2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
> instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
> anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
> POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
> the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The language is actually quite straightforward and in keeping with the
common definition of deadline.  Rule 2614 says "any deadline" and provides
the example of "a deadline for an obligation to be met".  While this is
just an example in the rule, that fact is

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3897 Judged FALSE by G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3897
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3897  ===

  Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

==

Caller:Aris

Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Aris:   01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.:   03 Feb 2021 17:26:53
Judged FALSE by G.:   10 Feb 2021 14:17:33

==

Caller's Arguments:

[linked to CFJ 3896]

Contracts v8 stated, said, in part:

"For the purposes of this proposal, neither pledges nor rules are contracts.

Destroy each contract."

If the CFJ immediately prior to this is FALSE, this one is trivially
false as well. However, if the previous CFJ is TRUE, that raises the
question of whether Proposal 7924 attempted to destroy Agora, and was
thus cancelled by AiaN. While the proposal states that rules are not
contracts, it says nothing about Agora as a whole. If Agora was a
contract (the term was undefined at the time), and AiaN blocks
attempts to destroy Agora by proposal, Proposal 7924 was entirely
blocked. Note that the use of "each" isn't enough to save the
proposal, since any proposal that has any part that would destroy
Agora is entirely cancelled.

CFJ 3813 is relevant, because it finds that Agora was not a contract
under a specific rules standard for contracts (although that standard
wasn't in effect at the time of Contracts v8).

Note also that this CFJ doesn't have a huge effect on the game; the
ruleset has been ratified since Contracts v8. The biggest question is
whether some old contracts, agencies, and organizations might in some
sense still exist.

--

Judge G.'s Arguments:

Since CFJ 3896 was found FALSE, I find this CFJ is trivially FALSE as per
the Caller's arguments.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3895 Judged FALSE by Aris

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3895
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3895  ===

  I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

==

Caller:Cuddlebeam

Judge: Aris
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Cuddlebeam: 25 Jan 2021 23:04:59
Assigned to Aris: 31 Jan 2021 20:19:26
Judged FALSE by Aris: 03 Feb 2021 21:49:42

==

Caller's Arguments:

In R2577, we have: "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful. When a
rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets
that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the
nearest natural number after all other calculations."

So, a reasonable interpretation is that if I attempt to transfer 0 cards,
it's successful and transfers 1 - it's rounded up, because 0 isn't a
natural number.

Or is it? Hi, VSauce here.

Yup, this all relies on the definition of "natural number" that we decide
to take. Is it all whole positive numbers except zero? Or including zero?
The big conundrum that we got up our pants here is that we have no explicit
precedent on this as far as I'm aware. And there is no clear consensus in
the real world on this either:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html


Caller's Evidence:

On 1/25/2021 3:04 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Aris to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from ATMunn to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Falsifian to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from G. to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Gaelan to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from grok to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Jason to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Joe to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from JTAC to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Lucidiot to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Murphy to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Nathan to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from nix to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Noah to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from omd to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from R. Lee to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Shy Owl to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Trigon to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Ubercrow to myself
> 
> If I have more than 10 Victory Cards, I then do the following:
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.

--

Judge Aris's Arguments:

The caller's arguments and evidence do an excellent job
of explaining the situation, so I won't go over it again here.

Players have raised three objections to CuddleBeam's actions.
If any of them is correct, this CFJ is FALSE. First, "I attempt
to transfer" could not count as a valid announcement of
transference. Second, CuddleBeam could lack a method for
performing the transfer. Third, 0 could be a natural number,
causing eir 0 asset transfers not to be rounded up to 1.

1. Attempts to Transfer

CuddleBeam said, for each other player, "I attempt to transfer
0 cards from  to myself". Someone, somewhere,
asked if this worked. Might have been on the Discord, but I
honestly don't recall. I find that, by the plain meaning of
"attempt", saying "I attempt to do X" means "If I can do X,
I do X".

I conclude that the objection to the word "attempt" is spurious.

2. Methods for the Transfer

CuddleBeam cites Rule 2577, "Asset Actions", which says in
part, "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful." However,
this does not specify a method. Rule 2125,"Regulated Actions",
says in part:

  If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
  doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
  from being performed except as described within it, including by
  limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
  within it.

While that provision is about as clear as mud, it does
say that the method for performing an action needs to be
specified. Saying generally that attempts are successful does
not provide a method.

The only way I can read the Rule 2577 provision is as a
clarification of the sentence stating that an asset's owner
can transfer it by announcement. Or the statement is completely
ineffective. Which of those is true is outside the scope of 

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3893 Judged FALSE by Gaelan

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3893
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3893  ===

  There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: Gaelan
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Jason:  18 Jan 2021 17:22:34
Assigned to Gaelan:   22 Jan 2021 20:53:36
Judged FALSE by Gaelan:   04 Feb 2021 12:24:45

==

Caller's Arguments:

Assigning a rule number appears to be a regulated action, as its
performance is "limited" by Rules 2141 and 2140 (since Rule numbers are
explicitly made substantive aspects of Rules, and Rules are
instruments). No Rule provides an explicit mechanism by which to set the
number of a Rule. Therefore, under Rule 2125, there is no mechanism to
assign rule numbers to rules (except by proposal most likely). Even if a
mechanism such as by annoucement were to be inferred, the standard for
by announcement has not been met, as the Rulekeepor has never announced
that e is assigning, e has only published rulesets with the numbers
labeled.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2141/14 (Power=3.1)
Role and Attributes of Rules

  A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1
  and 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
  IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to
  change the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside
  this range. The set of all currently-existing rules is called the
  ruleset.
Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
  former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a rule
  ever does not have a title, then the Rulekeepor CAN and SHALL
  assign a title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.
For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
  the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
  substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
  elsewhere in this rule.


Rule 2140/4 (Power=3)
Power Controls Mutability

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
  the power of this rule can
1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
2. adjust the power of a statute with power greater than its own.
3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
 with power greater than its own except as otherwise provided
 in this rule. A "substantive" aspect of a statute is any
 aspect that affects the statute's operation.
An ephemeral instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations
  specified in rules of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides
  those prohibition(s) as provided for in other rules.


Rule 2125/12 (Power=3)
Regulated Actions

  An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
  limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2)
  that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would
  succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify
  information for which some person bound by that body of law is
  required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
  doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
  from being performed except as described within it, including by
  limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
  within it. A body of law does not proscribe any action which it
  does not regulate.

--

Judge Gaelan's Arguments:

The question at hand is whether the Rulekeepor assigning rule numbers
works. The caller argues that it doesn't, because the rules specify that e
CAN do so but does not provide a method.

This appears to last have been litigated in CFJ 2981.

It was judged TRUE (i.e. rule numbers work) on a loophole in the wording.
A follow-up proposal. P6992 by Murphy and omd, removed that loophole and
attempted to make rule numbers work without it. The relevant parts of rule
2141 (now /14) haven't changed since.

So legislative intent is very explicitly for this to work. Presumably, the
authors expected this to work as follows (quoting from 2141/14):

- "However, rules to the contrary 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Wed 03 Feb 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3893 Assigned to Gaelan  OVERDUE Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36
3895 Assigned to ArisDue Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:19:26
3896 Assigned to G.  Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:24
3897 Assigned to G.  Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:53
3898 Assigned to Murphy  Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:31:34


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3892 ATMunn
3893 Gaelan
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3898 Assigned to Murphy [Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:31:34]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3898
 The time at which an intent to do something without objection
 becomes resolvable is a deadline.

3897 Assigned to G. [Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:53]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3897
 Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

3896 Assigned to G. [Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:24]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3896
 If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
 it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
 Nomic".

3895 Assigned to Aris [Due Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:19:26]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3895
 I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

3893 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3893
 There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3894 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 31 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3894
 The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
 "No Faking".

3892 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 17 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3898 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I state, under penalty of no faking, that I have not in any way discussed
the events underlying this cfj with Murphy, nor have I seen evidence of
eir opinions on the current situation.

The below CFJ is 3898.  I assign it to Murphy.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3898

===  CFJ 3898  ===

  The time at which an intent to do something without objection
  becomes resolvable is a deadline.

==

Caller:Jason
Barred:G.

Judge: Murphy

==

History:

Called by Jason:  03 Feb 2021 02:25:25
Assigned to Murphy:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

On 2/2/21 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> The following Emergency Regulation, The First Regulation of G.ravity,
> is enacted:
>
>   A pausable intent is any announcement of intent for performing a
>   dependent action either without N objections, with N Agoran consent,
>   with notice, or with T notice.
>
>   G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to extend the prior
>   deadline, provided for in Rule 2595(3), for performing a dependent
>   action based on a specified pausable intent (i.e. change the
>   time between intent announcement and the enabling of the
>   performance of the specified dependent action), to 14 days.

That time does not seem to fit the natural language meaning of the word
"deadline".

Definition from Google: "the latest time or date by which something
should be completed."

Definition from Merriam-Webster online: "a date or time before which
something must be done"

Definition from Dictionary.com: "the time by which something must be
finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something" or "a
line or limit that must not be passed."

In all of these definitions, something must become impossible - either
an action or the fulfillment of an obligation. For an intent resolution,
nothing becomes DISABLED or ILLEGAL when the intent becomes resolvable -
instead something becomes ENABLED. A close analogy seems to be the start
of a voting period - I would not say that the start is a deadline, only
the end.

A counterargument could be that the time when it becomes resolvable is
the deadline for people to get objections in while they can be sure they
can be heard. This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The start of the resolution period also does not fulfill any of the
criteria specifically listed in the rule - no action must be done before
the resolution period for it to be "valid" - objections are just as
valid after the intent is resolvable (when it will still have effect),
or even after it is resolved (when it is still an objection, and will
prevent repeated resolutions), nor is there generally any obligation for
something to be done before an intent becomes resolvable.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2614/5 (Power=3.01)
Eclipse Light [Excerpt]

- Extend any deadline provided for by any instrument other than
  this rule, including a deadline for an obligation to be met,
  or deadline prior to which an action must be performed in
  order to be valid, such as the end of voting period. Such an
  extension CANNOT cause the total time period, such as the
  time from when an obligation was created to the deadline or
  the whole of a voting period, to be more than double its
  original length.

--

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On 2/2/2021 6:25 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
> 2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
> instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
> anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
> POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
> the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The language is actually quite straightforward and in keeping with the
common definition of deadline.  Rule 2614 says "any deadline" and provides
the example of "a deadline for an obligation to be met".  While this is
just an e

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3897 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3897.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3897

===  CFJ 3897  ===

  Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

==

Caller:Aris

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by Aris:   01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

[linked to CFJ 3896]

Contracts v8 stated, said, in part:

"For the purposes of this proposal, neither pledges nor rules are contracts.

Destroy each contract."

If the CFJ immediately prior to this is FALSE, this one is trivially
false as well. However, if the previous CFJ is TRUE, that raises the
question of whether Proposal 7924 attempted to destroy Agora, and was
thus cancelled by AiaN. While the proposal states that rules are not
contracts, it says nothing about Agora as a whole. If Agora was a
contract (the term was undefined at the time), and AiaN blocks
attempts to destroy Agora by proposal, Proposal 7924 was entirely
blocked. Note that the use of "each" isn't enough to save the
proposal, since any proposal that has any part that would destroy
Agora is entirely cancelled.

CFJ 3813 is relevant, because it finds that Agora was not a contract
under a specific rules standard for contracts (although that standard
wasn't in effect at the time of Contracts v8).

Note also that this CFJ doesn't have a huge effect on the game; the
ruleset has been ratified since Contracts v8. The biggest question is
whether some old contracts, agencies, and organizations might in some
sense still exist.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3896 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3896.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3896

===  CFJ 3896  ===

  If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
  it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
  Nomic".

==

Caller:Aris

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by Aris:   01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

[linked to CFJ 3897]

A proposal that would destroy Agora would be canceled by AiaN. After
all, proposals that would otherwise "cause Agora to cease to exist"
are explicitly listed among the categories of proposals that AiaN
blocks. The question, then, is whether the proposal would, but for
AiaN, successfully cause Agora to cease to exist. If causing Agora to
cease to exist would involve repealing more than one rule, the action
would fail per Rule 105, which requires that the order of rule changes
be unambiguous. If it could be done without changes to the rules, I
honestly have no clue whether another rule would block it from
happening.

CFJ 3580 is relevant, since it discusses the behavior of legal
fictions with respect to AiaN.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3894 Judged FALSE by Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3894
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3894  ===

  The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
  "No Faking".

==

Caller:Cuddlebeam

Judge: Jason
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Cuddlebeam: 22 Jan 2021 21:53:05
Assigned to Jason:24 Jan 2021 23:43:08
Judged FALSE by Jason:31 Jan 2021 20:23:51

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 1/22/2021 1:53 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead with it.

--

Gratuitous Arguments by nix and Gaelan:

nix wrote:
>>> There's no intent to mislead. CB is speaking untruthfully about that
>>> being the intent, as evidenced by the fact that in the rest of the
>>> message e openly acknowledges that people may see it as untrue.
 Gaelan wrote:
>> But wait, e falsely claimed, with intent to mislead, that the statement
>> was false with an intent to mislead.

nix wrote:
> Since e pointed out both possibilities, there's no apparent attempt to 
> convince us of any specific interpretation. So there's nothing 
> misleading, regardless of the truth of the overall statement or any 
> parts of it.

--

Judge Jason's Evidence:

Rule 2471/1 (Power=1)
No Faking

  A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A
  statment is a lie if its publisher either knew or believed it to
  be not to be true at the time e published it (or, in the case of
  an action, not to be effective), and it was made with the intent
  to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
  it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
  clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
  part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
  falsity of the whole is what is significant.
The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal
  announcement of intent is never a lie.


Judge Jason's Arguments:

The first statement in the message is "This statement is a lie and I
intend to mislead with it." There are two components to this statement.
The first is "This statement is a lie". This is clearly an attempt at a
paradox. However, because the Rules define the meaning of "lie", it may
not be one. To determine whether the statement is a lie, the two part
test in Rule 2471 must be applied. First, Cuddlebeam must have known or
believed it "to be not to be true". That is nonsense, but is easily
adjusted to mean that e believed it "not to be true". Cuddlebeam clearly
believed this part of the statement to be a paradox (based on off-list
discussion and the fact that it very much resembles the liar's paradox),
which is not a factually true statement.

This violates the law of the excluded middle, but there is Rules-based
precedent for this: CFJ judgments. Neither TRUE nor FALSE is not an
appropriate judgment if PARADOXICAL is. This supports finding that a
statement which the publisher believes to be paradoxical is one e
believes to "not be true".

Cuddlebeam's statement "This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead
with it." E believed part of the statement not to be true, therefore e
believed the entire statement not to be true. The next question is
whether e intended to mislead by publishing the statement. Because this
is a statement about someone's intent, we can only work based on
probabilities. As such, I will judge based on what I perceive to be the
most likely situation.

I find that, on a balance of probabilities, Cuddlebeam did not intend to
mislead with eir statement because e explicitly noted e might receive a
No Faking sentence for publishing the above statement.

Cuddlebeam's statement was a lie, but e did not intend to mislead with
it. Judged FALSE.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 31 Jan 2021

DEADLINES (details below)
---
3893 Assigned to Gaelan  OVERDUE Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36
3894 Assigned to Jason   Due Sun 31 Jan 2021 23:43:08
3895 Assigned to ArisDue Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:19:26


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3891 G.
3892 ATMunn
3892 Murphy
3893 Gaelan
3894 Jason

Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3895 Assigned to Aris [Due Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:19:26]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3895
 I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

3894 Assigned to Jason [Due Sun 31 Jan 2021 23:43:08]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3894
 The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
 "No Faking".

3893 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3893
 There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3892 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 17 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3895 Assigned to Aris

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3895.  I assign it to Aris.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3895

===  CFJ 3895  ===

  I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

==

Caller:Cuddlebeam

Judge: Aris

==

History:

Called by Cuddlebeam: 25 Jan 2021 23:04:59
Assigned to Aris: [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

In R2577, we have: "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful. When a
rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets
that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the
nearest natural number after all other calculations."

So, a reasonable interpretation is that if I attempt to transfer 0 cards,
it's successful and transfers 1 - it's rounded up, because 0 isn't a
natural number.

Or is it? Hi, VSauce here.

Yup, this all relies on the definition of "natural number" that we decide
to take. Is it all whole positive numbers except zero? Or including zero?
The big conundrum that we got up our pants here is that we have no explicit
precedent on this as far as I'm aware. And there is no clear consensus in
the real world on this either:
https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NaturalNumber.html


Caller's Evidence:

On 1/25/2021 3:04 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Aris to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from ATMunn to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Falsifian to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from G. to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Gaelan to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from grok to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Jason to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Joe to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from JTAC to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Lucidiot to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Murphy to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Nathan to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from nix to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Noah to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from omd to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from R. Lee to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Shy Owl to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Trigon to myself
> I attempt to transfer 0 cards from Ubercrow to myself
> 
> If I have more than 10 Victory Cards, I then do the following:
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
> I pay 4 sets of Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 24 Jan 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3893 Assigned to Gaelan  Due Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36
3894 Assigned to Jason   Due Sun 31 Jan 2021 23:43:08


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3891 G.
3892 ATMunn
3892 Murphy
3893 Gaelan
3894 Jason

Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3894 Assigned to Jason [Due Sun 31 Jan 2021 23:43:08]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3894
 The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
 "No Faking".

3893 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3893
 There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3892 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 17 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.

3891 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 30 Dec 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3891
 In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3894 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3894.  I assign it to Jason.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3894

===  CFJ 3894  ===

  The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
  "No Faking".

==

Caller:Cuddlebeam

Judge: Jason

==

History:

Called by Cuddlebeam: 22 Jan 2021 21:53:05
Assigned to Jason:[now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 1/22/2021 1:53 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead with it.

--

Gratuitous Arguments by nix and Gaelan:

nix wrote:
>>> There's no intent to mislead. CB is speaking untruthfully about that
>>> being the intent, as evidenced by the fact that in the rest of the
>>> message e openly acknowledges that people may see it as untrue.

Gaelan wrote:
>> But wait, e falsely claimed, with intent to mislead, that the statement
>> was false with an intent to mislead.

nix wrote:
> Since e pointed out both possibilities, there's no apparent attempt to 
> convince us of any specific interpretation. So there's nothing 
> misleading, regardless of the truth of the overall statement or any 
> parts of it.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3892 Judged TRUE by Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3892
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3892  ===

  This is the highest-known altitude public message.

==

Caller:Gaelan

Judge: Murphy
Judgement: TRUE

==

History:

Called by Gaelan: 16 Dec 2020 18:26:07
Assigned to ATMunn:   20 Dec 2020 21:23:17
ATMunn recused:   11 Jan 2021 23:00:05
Assigned to Murphy:   11 Jan 2021 23:00:05
Judged TRUE by Murphy:17 Jan 2021 16:27:56

==

Caller's Evidence:

This image:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/attachments/20201216/3b7b5348/attachment-0001.jpeg

Was attached to this message:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-December/045415.html

with the note:
(Alt: a photo of the in-flight entertainment screen, showing that I am at
36998 ft)

--

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

There's been plenty of time for anyone to bring up knowledge of another
message to the contrary, yet no one has, and "altitude" currently has no
in-game definition to clash with the ordinary-language concept of
"altitude sent from" intended here. I judge TRUE.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3893 Assigned to Gaelan

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3893.  I assign it to Gaelan.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3893

===  CFJ 3893  ===

  There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.

==

Caller:Jason

Judge: Gaelan

==

History:

Called by Jason:  18 Jan 2021 17:22:34
Assigned to Gaelan:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

Assigning a rule number appears to be a regulated action, as its
performance is "limited" by Rules 2141 and 2140 (since Rule numbers are
explicitly made substantive aspects of Rules, and Rules are
instruments). No Rule provides an explicit mechanism by which to set the
number of a Rule. Therefore, under Rule 2125, there is no mechanism to
assign rule numbers to rules (except by proposal most likely). Even if a
mechanism such as by annoucement were to be inferred, the standard for
by announcement has not been met, as the Rulekeepor has never announced
that e is assigning, e has only published rulesets with the numbers
labeled.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2141/14 (Power=3.1)
Role and Attributes of Rules

  A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1
  and 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
  IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to
  change the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside
  this range. The set of all currently-existing rules is called the
  ruleset.
Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
  former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a rule
  ever does not have a title, then the Rulekeepor CAN and SHALL
  assign a title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.
For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
  the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
  substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
  elsewhere in this rule.


Rule 2140/4 (Power=3)
Power Controls Mutability

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
  the power of this rule can
1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
2. adjust the power of a statute with power greater than its own.
3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
 with power greater than its own except as otherwise provided
 in this rule. A "substantive" aspect of a statute is any
 aspect that affects the statute's operation.
An ephemeral instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations
  specified in rules of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides
  those prohibition(s) as provided for in other rules.


Rule 2125/12 (Power=3)
Regulated Actions

  An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
  limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2)
  that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would
  succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify
  information for which some person bound by that body of law is
  required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
  doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
  from being performed except as described within it, including by
  limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
  within it. A body of law does not proscribe any action which it
  does not regulate.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 11 Jan 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3892 Assigned to Murphy  Due Mon 18 Jan 2021 23:00:05


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3886 Gaelan
3889 Jason
3891 G.
3892 ATMunn
3892 Murphy

Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3892 Assigned to Murphy [Due Mon 18 Jan 2021 23:00:05]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3891 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 30 Dec 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3891
 In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3892 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I recuse ATMunn from CFJ 3892.
[my fault, really - my deadline for assigning this case was the day before
the holiday started, so was kind of stuck there.  But on discord ATMunn
just mentioned I should go ahead and reassign it, with eir apologies
(which was a R2492-compliant apology, since it needn't be public].


The below CFJ is 3892.  I assign it to Murphy.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3892

===  CFJ 3892  ===

  This is the highest-known altitude public message.

==

Caller:Gaelan

Judge: Murphy

==

History:

Called by Gaelan: 16 Dec 2020 18:26:07
Assigned to ATMunn:   20 Dec 2020 21:23:17
ATMunn recused:   [now]
Assigned to Murphy:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

This image:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/attachments/20201216/3b7b5348/attachment-0001.jpeg

Was attached to this message:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-December/045415.html

with the note:
(Alt: a photo of the in-flight entertainment screen, showing that I am at
36998 ft)

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 10 Jan 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3892 Assigned to ATMunn  OVERDUE Sun 27 Dec 2020 21:23:17


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3886 Gaelan
3887 Murphy
3889 Jason
3891 G.
3892 ATMunn

Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3892 Assigned to ATMunn [Due Sun 27 Dec 2020 21:23:17]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3891 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 30 Dec 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3891
 In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3891 Judged FALSE by G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3891
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3891  ===

  In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 07 Dec 2020 20:11:31
Assigned to G.:   07 Dec 2020 20:19:53
Judged FALSE by G.:   30 Dec 2020 18:03:03

==

Caller's Evidence [the 'above statement']:

On 12/7/2020 12:11 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> 
> I transfer the coin that has been in my possession the longest to Aris.


Caller's Arguments:

Arguments FOR: Since all coins are fungible, it doesn't matter which one
is transferred; it only matters that one was transferred.

Arguments AGAINST: Because all coins are fungible, you can't refer to a
specific one to transfer it.

--

Judge G.'s Arguments:

"Fungible" appears as a descriptor in the ruleset, without definition:

Rule 2578/1: Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.

The dictionary definition of 'fungible' is 'able to replace or be replaced
by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.'  Note that this does
not say 'indistinguishable across all domains'.  Fungibility may have a
specific domain:  1 paper dollar is exchangable with 100 pennies for the
purpose of satisfying a debt, but not for the purposes of melting for
metal content.

For a virtual currency in Agora, the most sensible domain seems to be
"across the domain of records".  The rules had a relatively short-lived
definition of fungibility in R1467/7 (June 2000 - Oct 2003):
> Since units of Currency are fungible, it is not necessary for
> the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual
> ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a
> record of the total number of units possessed by each entity
> which possesses any number of units of that Currency.

While a definition removed 17 years ago is hardly binding, it reflects the
game custom in use ever since, and matches common sense, so this seems
like a reasonable specification of domain for fungibility.  So, for a
fungible asset, the recordkeepor need not track individual units outside
of total balances.

However, let's say someone creates a contract with the following clause:
- Whenever currency is transferred to this contract that does not
already have a serial number, the units of currency are numbered with a
sequential serial number (units arriving simultaneously are given the next
range of numbers).  In order to transfer currency from this contract,
explicit serial numbers must be used in the announcement of transfer.

This would seem to create, as per R1742/22, an ability to transfer assets
from the contract under conditions of non-fungibility - that is,
individual units must be tracked for the Treasuror to know if a transfer
succeeded.

1.  Would this create a requirement for the Treasuror to track units?

This Court finds no - any such contract would be in textual conflict with
the R2578 (power=3) statement that instances of currency belonging to the
contract are fungible, and further, it would be beyond a reasonable effort
to impose such duties.  Such clauses would lead to all transfers from the
contract being ambiguous in terms of conditionals (as evaluating the
conditionals would require distinguishing things that are legally
indistinguishable).

2.  Would such transfers work anyway?

It would be possible to infer such a conditional as meaningless extra
information, that is, the treasuror could say "You attempted to transfer
coin #54423.  I don't legally recognize the number, but you've got some
coins, so I'll record a transfer of 1 coin (that is: any coin)."

In some senses, this would be a good interpretation - it might allow a
party to a contract to recordkeep serial numbers on the side for some
purpose, while not interfering with the treasuror's duties.  However,
announcement specification exists for a reason.  Saying "I transfer coin
#65444" generally means "I transfer this one coin, and if I don't have it
no transfer happens" rather than "I transfer this one coin, and if I don't
have it then I transfer any other coin" (if the actor had meant the
latter, e would have left off the serial number).  So adding a clause to a
transfer that attempts to distinguish the indistinguishable is better off
simply failing (since the actor's intent couldn't be fulfilled without
ambiguity).  That's the situation in the 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 20 Dec 2020


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3891 Assigned to G.  OVERDUE Mon 14 Dec 2020 20:19:53
3892 Assigned to ATMunn  Due Sun 27 Dec 2020 21:23:17


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3886 Gaelan
3887 Murphy
3888 nix
3889 Jason
3891 G.
3892 ATMunn

Occasional
Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris

Timeout (recused case)
R. Lee (3883), Shelvacu (3884)


OPEN CASES
---
3892 Assigned to ATMunn [Due Sun 27 Dec 2020 21:23:17]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.

3891 Assigned to G. [Due Mon 14 Dec 2020 20:19:53]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3891
 In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3890 Judged FALSE by Aris [Mon 30 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890
 To follow R217, judges SHOULD use "game custom, common sense, past
 judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game"
 as a strict checklist when interpreting inconsistencies in the
 rules.

3888 Judged FALSE by nix [Sat 28 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3888
 On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled
 '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3892 Assigned to ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3892.  I assign it to ATMunn.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3892

===  CFJ 3892  ===

  This is the highest-known altitude public message.

==

Caller:Gaelan

Judge: ATMunn

==

History:

Called by Gaelan: 06 Dec 2020 18:26:07
Assigned to ATMunn:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence:

This image:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/attachments/20201216/3b7b5348/attachment-0001.jpeg

Was attached to this message:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-December/045415.html

with the note:
(Alt: a photo of the in-flight entertainment screen, showing that I am at
36998 ft)

==

OFF: [temp-deputy Treasuror] Victory Auction

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

[Was not done by the Nov 30 "MUST do so at least once a month", so is now
14+ days late].

I temporarily deputize for the Treasuror to initiate a Victory Auction
with the following lots:

Lot 1.  All of the Victory Cards owned by the LF (last treasuror report
shows 4).
Lot 2.  One Victory Card.

The auction currency is Coins.  This is a generalized auction as per the
ACORN (top bidder gets Lot 1, second bidder gets Lot 2).

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 13 Dec 2020


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3891 Assigned to G.  Due Mon 14 Dec 2020 20:19:53


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3880 ATMunn
3886 Gaelan
3887 Murphy
3888 nix
3889 Jason
3891 G.

Occasional
Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris

Timeout (recused case)
R. Lee (3883), Shelvacu (3884)


OPEN CASES
---
3891 Assigned to G. [Due Mon 14 Dec 2020 20:19:53]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3891
 In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3890 Judged FALSE by Aris [Mon 30 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890
 To follow R217, judges SHOULD use "game custom, common sense, past
 judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game"
 as a strict checklist when interpreting inconsistencies in the
 rules.

3889 Judged TRUE by Jason [Sun 15 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3889
 Webmastor is an office.

3888 Judged FALSE by nix [Sat 28 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3888
 On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled
 '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3891 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3891.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3891

===  CFJ 3891  ===

  In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.

==

Caller:ATMunn

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by ATMunn: 07 Dec 2020 20:11:31
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

Caller's Evidence [the 'above statement']:

On 12/7/2020 12:11 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> 
> I transfer the coin that has been in my possession the longest to Aris.


Caller's Arguments:

Arguments FOR: Since all coins are fungible, it doesn't matter which one
is transferred; it only matters that one was transferred.

Arguments AGAINST: Because all coins are fungible, you can't refer to a
specific one to transfer it.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 06 Dec 2020


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[none]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3880 ATMunn
3885 G.
3886 Gaelan
3887 Murphy
3888 nix
3889 Jason

Occasional
Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris

Timeout (recused case)
R. Lee (3883), Shelvacu (3884)


OPEN CASES
---
[none]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3890 Judged FALSE by Aris [Mon 30 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890
 To follow R217, judges SHOULD use "game custom, common sense, past
 judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game"
 as a strict checklist when interpreting inconsistencies in the
 rules.

3889 Judged TRUE by Jason [Sun 15 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3889
 Webmastor is an office.

3888 Judged FALSE by nix [Sat 28 Nov 2020]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3888
 On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled
 '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge.

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3890 Judged FALSE by Aris

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3890
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3890  ===

  To follow R217, judges SHOULD use "game custom, common sense, past
  judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game"
  as a strict checklist when interpreting inconsistencies in the
  rules.

==

Caller:G.

Judge: Aris
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by G.: 17 Nov 2020 02:18:10
Assigned to Aris: 17 Nov 2020 02:18:10
Motion to extend filed:   23 Nov 2020 08:25:20
Judged FALSE by Aris: 30 Nov 2020 20:23:01

==

Judge Aris's Arguments:

Rule 217 is one of our most vital rules. It tells us how to go
about what may be the most Agoran of all activities: interpreting the rules.
Sadly, interpretation of this rule, which underpins the interpretation
of all others, has recently gone astray.

The problem lies in the first paragraph of the rule, which I shall quote:
"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."

This rule is clear enough in the base case. We are to start with the text,
and use that alone unless it is "silent, inconsistent, or unclear".
But if it is, what happens? We are to augment the test with four other
elements, often referred to as the four factors. The question is how
this augmentation should proceed. Currently, a standard means of
conducting that augmentation is to apply *all* of the factors. After all,
the rule says we should augment the rule text with those factors. Surely
that means to use all of the factors?

As G. pointed out in eir commentary on a recent related proposal, this mode
of interpretation is relatively new. While the text regarding factors
was in the rule in some form since 1993, and in near its current form since
1996, the habit of listing all of the factors in the adjudication of
a case is recent. And, as nix points out in eir commentary on the same
proposal, this form of interpretation doesn't particularly make sense.
E gives the sample text "where roads are potentially dangerous or confusing,
they are to be augmented by signs, lights, and crossing guards". Clearly,
this means that the roads are to augmented by whichever tools are appropriate,
not that all of them are to be used in every case.

If we are not to use the factors like a checklist, how are we to use them?
Allow me to provide a metaphor.

Judicial interpretation is like assembling pieces of wood. Sometimes the
pieces will just slot together nicely, but when they don't, you can pull
out your trusty toolbox, containing a hammer and a saw, among
other tools. Then, you use whichever tools are best to finish the job.
There's no expectation that you list out all of the tools and say
"the saw is inapplicable; the hammer is the relevant tool for
this job." You could, I suppose, but it would be a bit weird.
Moreover, by listing out all of them, you may feel pressure to use all
of the tools that you *can* use, regardless of whether it's a tool you
*should* use in this case.

A judge is a craftsman — two judges are unlikely to write the same
opinion, even if they come to the same conclusion. Accordingly, judges
should, to interpret the rules correctly, use the tools that in their
artisanal judgement are the best fit. The tools they have are
actually surprisingly broad. For a start, they're given the text
itself — all means of interpretation that consider only the text, rather
than outside factors, are fair game. If they need to consider
outside information, they are given a broad range to choose from
— they are given knowledge of the game's past and more specifically of
the interpretations of prior judges, they are given the natural instincts of
a person, which are known as common sense, and they are given the
explicit license to consider the best answer to the question from a
policy-making perspective.

The broader understanding of Rule 217 opens up more ways to interpret
the same text. That's a good thing. There are situations where
one or two of the tools are clearly more appropriate than the others. Where
there is no obvious way to solve a given problem, judges are free to apply
their own life experience in producing unique answers, as long as their
reasoning is not so idiosyncratic that it will not be accepted by others.
If judges do err, the rules provide ways to