OFF: [Arbitor] Rewards for Judging CFJs (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-official]

In accordance with Rule 2496 "Rewards", I grant coins as follows:

5 boatloads to Murphy for judging CFJ 3926
10 boatloads to Jason for judging CFJs 3929 and 3930
5 boatloads to ais523 for judging CFJ 3931

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Thu 07 Oct 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3932 Assigned to Falsifian  Due Thu 14 Oct 2021 03:50:08
3933 Assigned to G. Due Thu 14 Oct 2021 03:59:25

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3931 ais523
3930 Jason
3926 Murphy
3933 G.

Occasional Judges:
3907 Aspen  [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
3932 Falsifian  [Thu 07 Oct 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

Recused:
3926 Gaelan

OPEN CASES
---
3932 Assigned to Falsifian [Due Thu 14 Oct 2021 03:50:08]
 Called by R. Lee [Mon 04 Oct 2021]
 Benbot is a player.

3933 Assigned to G. [Due Thu 14 Oct 2021 03:59:25]
 Called by ais523 [Wed 06 Oct 2021]
 The Device is off.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3929 Judged TRUE by Jason [Fri 01 Oct 2021]
 R. Lee Recused [Sun 19 Sep 2021]
 Called by ais523 [Fri 10 Sep 2021]
 If a player breached a power-2 rule by
 missing a deadline right now...

3930 Judged FALSE by Jason [Fri 01 Oct 2021]
 R. Lee Recused [Sun 19 Sep 2021]
 ais523 Barred [Sun 12 Sep 2021]
 Called by G. [Sun 12 Sep 2021]
 Making a particular day a holiday is a regulated action.

3931 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 20 Sep 2021]
 Called by Cuddlebeam [Mon 13 Sep 2021]
 In this message I have won the game.

3926 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 19 Sep 2021]
 Gaelan Recused [Fri 17 Sep 2021]
 nix Recused [Mon 06 Sep 2021]
 Called by ais523 [Sat 04 Sep 2021]
 The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence
 of my Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

-
3928 Judged DISMISS by Jason [Sat 11 Sep 2021]
 Called by Trigon [Wed 15 Sep 2021]
 This auction was started under the Treasuror's
 Auction Regulations at the time it was started.

OFF: CFJ 3933 Assigned to G.

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3933. I assign it to G.

=

The Device is off.

Called by ais523: Wed 06 Oct 2021 11:41:35

=

On 2021-10-06 22:41, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

I act on behalf of the Device to cause em to deactivate emself.

CFJ: The Device is off.

Evidence: the first sentence of this message, the fact that the Device
was on prior to this message, and:

Excerpt from rule 2654:
{{{
   When the device is on:
   [...]
   A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement.
}}}

Excerpt from rule 2655:
{{{
   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.
}}}

Excerpt from rule 2646:
{{{
   Activity is a player switch tracked by the Registrar, with values
   Active (default) and Inactive.  To flip a player's activity to
   active (inactive) is to activate (deactivate) em.
}}}

Excerpt from rule 2466:
{{{
   When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of
   another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN
   perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so,
   taking into account any prerequisites for the action.
   [...]
   Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is secured
   at power 2.0.
}}}


Arguments:

There are two issues here, related to the fact that the Device is a
switch, not a player or a person.

The first is: what happens when you act on behalf of a non-person
object? Our current "act on behalf" rules cover only the case of a
person acting on behalf of another person, and this is an attempt to
act on behalf of something else. However, a power-1 rule states that
this attempt is possible (with a CAN), and no higher-power rule seems
to prevent the attempt (acting-on-behalf is secured at power 2 but only
when acting on behalf of a person). So I conclude that the attempt to
do this necessarily works (in the sense of it being a possible action),
but am not sure what effect that action would have if performed (if
indeed it does anything at all).

The second is: assuming the act-on-behalf works similarly to acting on
behalf of a person, what does it mean for the Device to deactivate
emself? Rule 2646 gives us a definition of "deactivate" in the context
of Agora, but the definition is specific to players. Does this mean
that we should fall back to the normal English meaning of "deactivate"
when the ruleset applies the rules to other sorts of objects? If so,
how does that meaning apply to Agoran switches?

The device has two possible states, "on" and "off". It seems pretty
plausible that "deactivate" is a synonym for "turn off". On the other
hand, it seems a bit weird to describe the act of turning off a switch
as deactivating the *switch*; normally the word would be used to
describe the act of turning off the switch as deactivating whatever it
is that the switch controls. (Although I can see a pretty plausible
argument that Agora's Device is a switch that controls itself! Or
possibly, it's a switch that controls rule 2654.)


I know that we've been talking about the Device as "this is inevitably
going to become a player at some point and Agora can't be stopped from
making it happening", but the Device being a non-player has created
some interesting gameplay too.

OFF: CFJ 3932 Assigned to Falsifian

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3932. I assign it to Falsifian.

=

Benbot is a player.

Called by R. Lee: Mon 04 Oct 2021 04:19:43

=

On 2021-10-04 15:19, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:46 AM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:


On Sun, 2021-10-03 at 09:39 -0400, BenjaminFrancis Rodriguez via agora-
business wrote:

This email declares (soon to be) player Benbot² intention to join the
game under Alias Benbot²


By the "(soon to be)", do you mean that you're joining immediately and
are referring to the time immediately after your message? Or do you
mean that you're planning to join in, e.g., a few days from now?

--
ais523



Seems ambiguous. I CFJ: Benbot is a player.

OFF: CFJs 3929 and 3930 Assigned to Jason

[Telna via agora-official]

I recuse R. Lee from CFJs 3929 and 3930. (E is deregistered).
I assign CFJs 3929 and 3930 to Jason.

On 2021-09-17 12:54, Telna via agora-official wrote:

The below CFJ is 3929. I assign it to R. Lee.

=

If a player breached a power-2 rule by missing a deadline right now, 
punishing that breach would generally be appropriate.


Called by ais523: Fri 10 Sep 2021 21:36:37

=

On 2021-09-11 07:36, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

On Thu, 2021-09-09 at 16:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:

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!!


CFJ: If a player breached a power-2 rule by missing a deadline right
now, punishing that breach would generally be appropriate.

Evidence:
{{{
Excerpt from R1769 (power 3):
   If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs
   during a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.

Excerpt from R2654 (power 1):
    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.

Excerpts from R2140 (power 3):
   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
   the power of this rule can
[...]
   3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
   with power greater than its own (that is, one that affects the
   instrument's operation).

The rules relevant to punishing rule violations (R2557, R2478, R2531)
all have Power of at least 1.7.

The Device is on.
}}}

Arguments:
{{{
Because the Device is on right now, and was created within the previous
two weeks, R2654 attempts to create a Holiday. Does it have enough
Power to a) do that, and/or b) cause the Holiday to actually do
anything?

Every rule that this could potentially be affecting has a Power greater
than R2654 does. So I think it's plausible to read R2140 as preventing
R2654 from modifying the operation of higher-power rules. The situation
is far from clear, though, which is why I think this is worth a CFJ.
}}}



On 2021-09-17 12:57, Telna via agora-official wrote:

The below CFJ is 3930. I assign it to R. Lee. (linked to 3929)

=

Making a particular day a holiday is a regulated action.

Called by G.: Sun 12 Sep 2021 20:08:06

=

On 2021-09-13 06:07, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


CFJ: Making a particular day a holiday is a regulated action.


I bar ais523 (no offense, just may be linked to other one).


Caller's Arguments

Arguments for FALSE:

First, holiday is not defined by the rules.

The only effects of making a day a holiday is (from R1769/15):
   If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs during
   a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.

And in (Rule 2125/13):
   An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
   permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances
   under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action
   would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some
   player is required to be a recordkeepor.

The rules don't explicitly limit, allow, enable or permit the making of a
day to be a holiday, so not (1).  The rules don't describe when making a
holiday would succeed or fail (2).  What about (3)?  The only record
involved would be the referee's punishment of blots, but that's after a
finger-pointing.  At that point, the referee has freedom to ignore the
holiday rule ("generally not appropriate" is a much weaker standard than
the "blatantly and obviously unsuited" standard in R2531 that would 
change

the outcome of the referee's free decision).  Overall the current
punishment system is too indirect for those records to be considered 
"part

of the effect" of a holiday being created.

(Of course, saying that a holidaymaking is unregulated doesn't mean it 
can

be done by announcement or anything like that).

OFF: [Arbitor] Rewards for Judging CFJs (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-official]

In accordance with Rule 2496 "Rewards", I grant 5 boatloads of coins to 
Jason for judging CFJ 3928.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Fri 17 Sep 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3926 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:51:18
3929 Assigned to R. Lee Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:54:59
3930 Assigned to R. Lee Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:57:22
3931 Assigned to ais523 Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:59:15

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3923 G.
3928 Jason
3926 Murphy
3930 R. Lee
3991 ais523

Occasional Judges:
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aspen  [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

Recused:
3926 Gaelan

OPEN CASES
---
3926 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:51:18]
 Gaelan Recused [Fri 17 Sep 2021]
 nix Recused [Mon 06 Sep 2021]
 Called by ais523 [Sat 04 Sep 2021]
 The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence
 of my Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

3929 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:54:59]
 Called by ais523 [Fri 10 Sep 2021]
 If a player breached a power-2 rule by
 missing a deadline right now...

3930 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:57:22]
 ais523 Barred [Sun 12 Sep 2021]
 Called by G. [Sun 12 Sep 2021]
 Making a particular day a holiday is a regulated action.

3931 Assigned to ais523 [Due Fri 24 Sep 2021 02:59:15]
 Called by Cuddlebeam [Mon 13 Sep 2021]
 In this message I have won the game.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3928 Judged DISMISS by Jason [Sat 11 Sep 2021]
 Called by Trigon [Wed 15 Sep 2021]
 This auction was started under the Treasuror's
 Auction Regulations at the time it was started.

3927 Judged DISMISS by Telna [Sun 05 Sep 2021]
 If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of
 stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information)...

3922 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Sun 05 Sep 2021]
 Judgement Remanded [Sat 04 Sep 2021]
 Judgement Mooted by Jason [Sat 28 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Wed 25 Aug 2021]
 ATMunn Recused [Mon 23 Aug 2021]
 Murphy Recused [Sun 15 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 Called by Aspen [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

3925 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Wed 01 Sep 2021]
 If a Mad Scientist announces a random selection
 for a rule for a specified future week...

3923 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

OFF: CFJ 3931 Assigned to ais523

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3931. I assign it to ais523.

=

In this message I have won the game.

Called by Cuddlebeam: Mon 13 Sep 2021 13:24:42

=

On 2021-09-13 23:24, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I create the following contract called "Anime Powers":

-+-
An anime is an asset. It can be held by any person, and Cuddlebeam can
create one in his ownership by announcement. Cuddlebeam is the recordkeepor
of animes.

The following list are the modifications to the transferral of animes:
- Animes CANNOT be transferred during the years 69, 420 or 8008135.
- When some natural number amount of animes are transferred, Cuddlebeam
wins the game of Agora nomic.
- When a person attempts to transfer no animes, Cuddlebeam wins the game of
Agora nomic.
-+-

I create an anime in my ownership.
I transfer one anime from myself to Peter Suber.
I transfer no animes from myself to Peter Suber.


I CFJ: In this message I have won the game.

Grat Args:
- Winning is regulated, and asset transfer is also regulated.
- Asset transfer is regulated, and it seems like "An asset generally CAN be
transferred (syn. given) by announcement by its owner to another entity,
subject to modification by its backing document." allows you to 'inject'
into the ruleset some text by indirect means. In fact, I can't transfer
animes during the year 420; but that's not textually explicit in the
ruleset, it's in the contract, but the ruleset is bound to what that
contract says, because the ruleset itself says so.
- So, regulated actions don't need to have their mechanisms entirely
textually explicit in the rules themselves. (Many contract and promise
regulated actions require this to be true.)
- So, someone can win (a regulated action) without its method being just
plainly spelt out into the Ruleset.
- Back to "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by
announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its
backing document.", there doesn't seem to be any limits (in regards to
doing this, winning the game) to the scope of these modifications.
- Winning Agora is regulated (it's tracked by the Rulekeepor), but we've
already established that regulated actions don't need to have all of their
mechanisms textually explicit in the Ruleset itself, that they can 'read'
text from elsewhere and have that be as binding as the 'reading' mechanism
allows - eg. promise rules, contract rules, Regulation rules, etc.
- I also tried to use the "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful"
clause if that's ever relevant somehow.
- So yeah. I think I won.
- I know for sure that the Judge is a very cool person. So cool in fact,
that they will apply P1R217 in my favor, should it be required to be
invoked.

OFF: CFJ 3930 Assigned to R. Lee

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3930. I assign it to R. Lee. (linked to 3929)

=

Making a particular day a holiday is a regulated action.

Called by G.: Sun 12 Sep 2021 20:08:06

=

On 2021-09-13 06:07, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


CFJ: Making a particular day a holiday is a regulated action.


I bar ais523 (no offense, just may be linked to other one).


Caller's Arguments

Arguments for FALSE:

First, holiday is not defined by the rules.

The only effects of making a day a holiday is (from R1769/15):
   If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs during
   a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.

And in (Rule 2125/13):
   An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
   permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances
   under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action
   would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some
   player is required to be a recordkeepor.

The rules don't explicitly limit, allow, enable or permit the making of a
day to be a holiday, so not (1).  The rules don't describe when making a
holiday would succeed or fail (2).  What about (3)?  The only record
involved would be the referee's punishment of blots, but that's after a
finger-pointing.  At that point, the referee has freedom to ignore the
holiday rule ("generally not appropriate" is a much weaker standard than
the "blatantly and obviously unsuited" standard in R2531 that would change
the outcome of the referee's free decision).  Overall the current
punishment system is too indirect for those records to be considered "part
of the effect" of a holiday being created.

(Of course, saying that a holidaymaking is unregulated doesn't mean it can
be done by announcement or anything like that).

OFF: CFJ 3929 Assigned to R. Lee

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3929. I assign it to R. Lee.

=

If a player breached a power-2 rule by missing a deadline right now, 
punishing that breach would generally be appropriate.


Called by ais523: Fri 10 Sep 2021 21:36:37

=

On 2021-09-11 07:36, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

On Thu, 2021-09-09 at 16:20 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:

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!!


CFJ: If a player breached a power-2 rule by missing a deadline right
now, punishing that breach would generally be appropriate.

Evidence:
{{{
Excerpt from R1769 (power 3):
   If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs
   during a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.

Excerpt from R2654 (power 1):
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.

Excerpts from R2140 (power 3):
   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
   the power of this rule can
[...]
   3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
   with power greater than its own (that is, one that affects the
   instrument's operation).

The rules relevant to punishing rule violations (R2557, R2478, R2531)
all have Power of at least 1.7.

The Device is on.
}}}

Arguments:
{{{
Because the Device is on right now, and was created within the previous
two weeks, R2654 attempts to create a Holiday. Does it have enough
Power to a) do that, and/or b) cause the Holiday to actually do
anything?

Every rule that this could potentially be affecting has a Power greater
than R2654 does. So I think it's plausible to read R2140 as preventing
R2654 from modifying the operation of higher-power rules. The situation
is far from clear, though, which is why I think this is worth a CFJ.
}}}

OFF: CFJ 3926 Assigned to Murphy

[Telna via agora-official]

I recuse Gaelan from CFJ 3926 (overdue and player inactive).
I assign CFJ 3926 to Murphy.

On 2021-09-09 11:26, Telna via agora-official wrote:

Following recusal, I assign CFJ 3926 to Gaelan.

On 2021-09-01 15:41, Telna via agora-official wrote:

The below is CFJ 3926. I assign it to nix.

=

The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my Blue
Glitter award earlier in this message.

Called by ais523: Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:23:34

=

On 2021-09-01 14:23, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

I award myself Blue Glitter. (I judged CFJ 3925 recently, already have
a Blue Ribbon, and have not tried to claim Blue Glitter since.)

CFJ: The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my
Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

Evidence: this message, and the following quote from the online FLR:
{{{
Rule 2602/7 (Power=1)
Glitter

   "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter with the
   same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
   qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a
   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. When a player gains a type
   of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially timely fashion and
   CAN once by announcement award em N/2 boatloads of coins rounded
   up, where N is the number of players that did not own the
   corresponding type of Ribbon at the time of the award. The amount
   payable for each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's
   weekly report.

Rule 2577/6 (Power=3), exerpt
Asset Actions

   For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for that
   asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an
   entity an asset is to create it in eir possession.
}}}

Arguments:
{{{
The version of Rule 2602 on the online FLR is a mess. In addition to an
unmatched double quote, it starts by defining the circumstances in
which a player "qualifies" for glitter, but then probably ignores them
(it may be that an oddly placed "that" is trying to point to this
definition). It then continues by saying that a player can be "awarded"
glitter if they haven't had glitter for a redundant earning of a
Ribbon. That's the action I took in the message where I called this
CFJ.

However, the Tailor's coin reward is based on "gaining" glitter. What
relationship does this have to being awarded it? The term "award" is
normally used for Ribbons and for Patent Titles, whereas "gain" is
typically used for assets; neither a Ribbon nor a Patent Title is an
asset. "Gain" is mentioned in the definition of the White Ribbon,
though. Rule 2577 mentions "gain" as a historical synonym for "earn",
which doesn't really help matters much (it may make the White Ribbon's
definition easier to understand, but maybe not); also, defining
something as a historical synonym doesn't necessarily imply that the
synonym exists now.

If being "awarded" glitter causes you to "gain" it, then is the glitter
itself some sort of tracked object? Perhaps an asset, or a Patent
Title? Or is this meant as some sort of hypothetical condition that
rules can look at (in which case there's no obvious reason to link
"gain" to "award"?).

It also seems possible that there's been a Rulekeepor error related to
the rule in question, and the online FLR doesn't match the actual
ruleset; I haven't looked into this.
}}}

OFF: CFJ 3928 Assigned to Jason

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3928. I assign it to Jason.

=

This auction was started under the Treasuror's Auction Regulations at 
the time it was started.


Called by Trigon: Wed 08 Sep 2021 19:10:30

=

On 2021-09-09 05:10, Trigon via agora-official wrote:

El 03/09/2021 a las 03:21, Trigon escribió:
I, Trigon, the Treasuror of Agora Nomic, being authorized by Rule 
2629/0, do hereby initiate a Victory Auction.


The first lot is both Victory Cards owned by the Lost and Found 
Department.


The second lot is a new Victory Card.

The currency for this auction shall be the coin.

The procedure for this auction shall be a Selective-Bid Auction, as 
described by the Treasuror's Auction Regulations, which can be found 
in the ACORN at the following link:





CFJ: This auction was started under the Treasuror's Auction
Regulations at the time it was started.

Arguments: I said "The procedure for this auction shall be a
Selective-Bid Auction, as described by the Treasuror's Auction
Regulations" but then continued to link to the ACORN of 13 August. The
correct ACORN would have been the one from 30 August[1], which
includes my edits[2]. So what happened?

[1]https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-August/015256.html
[2]https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-August/015247.html

OFF: CFJ 3926 Assigned to Gaelan

[Telna via agora-official]

Following recusal, I assign CFJ 3926 to Gaelan.

On 2021-09-01 15:41, Telna via agora-official wrote:

The below is CFJ 3926. I assign it to nix.

=

The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my Blue
Glitter award earlier in this message.

Called by ais523: Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:23:34

=

On 2021-09-01 14:23, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

I award myself Blue Glitter. (I judged CFJ 3925 recently, already have
a Blue Ribbon, and have not tried to claim Blue Glitter since.)

CFJ: The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my
Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

Evidence: this message, and the following quote from the online FLR:
{{{
Rule 2602/7 (Power=1)
Glitter

   "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter with 
the

   same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
   qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such 
a
   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. When a player gains a 
type
   of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially timely fashion 
and
   CAN once by announcement award em N/2 boatloads of coins 
rounded

   up, where N is the number of players that did not own the
   corresponding type of Ribbon at the time of the award. The 
amount

   payable for each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's
   weekly report.

Rule 2577/6 (Power=3), exerpt
Asset Actions

   For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for 
that

   asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an
   entity an asset is to create it in eir possession.
}}}

Arguments:
{{{
The version of Rule 2602 on the online FLR is a mess. In addition to 
an

unmatched double quote, it starts by defining the circumstances in
which a player "qualifies" for glitter, but then probably ignores them
(it may be that an oddly placed "that" is trying to point to this
definition). It then continues by saying that a player can be 
"awarded"

glitter if they haven't had glitter for a redundant earning of a
Ribbon. That's the action I took in the message where I called this
CFJ.

However, the Tailor's coin reward is based on "gaining" glitter. What
relationship does this have to being awarded it? The term "award" is
normally used for Ribbons and for Patent Titles, whereas "gain" is
typically used for assets; neither a Ribbon nor a Patent Title is an
asset. "Gain" is mentioned in the definition of the White Ribbon,
though. Rule 2577 mentions "gain" as a historical synonym for "earn",
which doesn't really help matters much (it may make the White Ribbon's
definition easier to understand, but maybe not); also, defining
something as a historical synonym doesn't necessarily imply that the
synonym exists now.

If being "awarded" glitter causes you to "gain" it, then is the 
glitter

itself some sort of tracked object? Perhaps an asset, or a Patent
Title? Or is this meant as some sort of hypothetical condition that
rules can look at (in which case there's no obvious reason to link
"gain" to "award"?).

It also seems possible that there's been a Rulekeepor error related to
the rule in question, and the online FLR doesn't match the actual
ruleset; I haven't looked into this.
}}}

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 06 Sep 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3926 Assigned to nixDue Wed 08 Sep 2021 05:41:33

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3918 Gaelan
3921 Jason
3922 R. Lee
3922 Murphy
3925 ais523

Occasional Judges:
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aspen  [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
3926 nix[Wed 01 Sep 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
3926 Assigned to nix [Due Wed 08 Sep 2021 05:41:33]
 The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence
 of my Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3927 Judged DISMISS by Telna [Sun 05 Sep 2021]
 If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of
 stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information)...

3922 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Sun 05 Sep 2021]
 Judgement Remanded [Sat 04 Sep 2021]
 Judgement Mooted by Jason [Sat 28 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Wed 25 Aug 2021]
 ATMunn Recused [Mon 23 Aug 2021]
 Murphy Recused [Sun 15 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 Called by Aspen [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

3925 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Wed 01 Sep 2021]
 If a Mad Scientist announces a random selection
 for a rule for a specified future week...

3923 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

3924 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus
 will flip to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.

3921 Judged FALSE by Jason [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

OFF: [Arbitor] Rewards for Judging CFJs (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-official]

In accordance with Rule 2496 "Rewards", I grant coins as follows:

10 boatloads to R. Lee for twice judging CFJ 3922
5 boatloads to ais523 for judging CFJ 3925
5 boatloads to Telna for judging CJF 3927

OFF: [Arbitor] Resolution of the Decision to Determine Public Confidence in the Judgement of CFJ 3922

[Telna via agora-official]

I hereby resolve the Agoran Decision to Determine Public Confidence in 
the Judgement of CFJ 3922.


The quorum for this decision was 6.

All voter's Voting Strengths were 3.

AFFIRM  (3): G., R. Lee, D. Wet
REMAND  (4): Jason, cuddlybanana, ais523, Aspen
REMIT   (0):
PRESENT (4): Telna, Trigon, ATMunn, Falsifian
BALLOTS: 11
OUTCOME: REMAND

CFJ 3922 is hereby rendered open once more. R. Lee remains Judge.

OFF: CFJ 3927 Assigned to Telna

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3927. I assign it to Telna.

=

If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of stones 
that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then despite 
the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying.


Called by ais523: Sat 04 Sep 2021 05:42:42

=

On 2021-09-04 15:42, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self-
ratifying stone report):

All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No escape choices
are necessary.


CFJ: If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of
stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then
despite the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying.

Evidence: The above-quoted message.

Arguments: Most triggers for self-ratification in the rules require the
thing that self-ratifies to purport to be something, e.g. a Ribbons
report self-ratifies only if it's purporting to be a Ribbons report.
However, assets are a separate case; rule 2166 states that the
recordkeepor's report lists all instances of the class of assets and
their owners, and that portion of the report is self-ratifying. In
other words, the trigger is whether something *is* an asset report, not
whether it *purports to be* one.

The Stonemason's only weekly duty, as far as I can tell, is to be "the
recordkeepor of stones". As such, I think any listing, published by the
Stonemason, of what stones exist and who their owners are is a
Stonemason weekly report by definition, even if it claims not to be.
(Specifically, I think the hypothetical collection notice posited by
the CFJ would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in rule 2143 to
perform the officekeepor's weekly duties.)

As a side note: the actual message did not list what stones existed,
which I think is sufficient to make it not count as a weekly report; I
can't find anything in the rules that requires all the defined stones
to exist (they're indestructible but nothing forces them to have been
created in the first place). So this means, sadly, that I have to put a
hypothetical in the statement to prevent the CFJ ending up with an
obvious result on a technicality.

OFF: CFJ 3926 Assigned to nix

[Telna via agora-official]

The below is CFJ 3926. I assign it to nix.

=

The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my Blue 
Glitter award earlier in this message.


Called by ais523: Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:23:34

=

On 2021-09-01 14:23, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

I award myself Blue Glitter. (I judged CFJ 3925 recently, already have
a Blue Ribbon, and have not tried to claim Blue Glitter since.)

CFJ: The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my
Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

Evidence: this message, and the following quote from the online FLR:
{{{
Rule 2602/7 (Power=1)
Glitter

   "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter with the
   same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
   qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a
   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. When a player gains a type
   of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially timely fashion and
   CAN once by announcement award em N/2 boatloads of coins rounded
   up, where N is the number of players that did not own the
   corresponding type of Ribbon at the time of the award. The amount
   payable for each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's
   weekly report.

Rule 2577/6 (Power=3), exerpt
Asset Actions

   For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for that
   asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an
   entity an asset is to create it in eir possession.
}}}

Arguments:
{{{
The version of Rule 2602 on the online FLR is a mess. In addition to an
unmatched double quote, it starts by defining the circumstances in
which a player "qualifies" for glitter, but then probably ignores them
(it may be that an oddly placed "that" is trying to point to this
definition). It then continues by saying that a player can be "awarded"
glitter if they haven't had glitter for a redundant earning of a
Ribbon. That's the action I took in the message where I called this
CFJ.

However, the Tailor's coin reward is based on "gaining" glitter. What
relationship does this have to being awarded it? The term "award" is
normally used for Ribbons and for Patent Titles, whereas "gain" is
typically used for assets; neither a Ribbon nor a Patent Title is an
asset. "Gain" is mentioned in the definition of the White Ribbon,
though. Rule 2577 mentions "gain" as a historical synonym for "earn",
which doesn't really help matters much (it may make the White Ribbon's
definition easier to understand, but maybe not); also, defining
something as a historical synonym doesn't necessarily imply that the
synonym exists now.

If being "awarded" glitter causes you to "gain" it, then is the glitter
itself some sort of tracked object? Perhaps an asset, or a Patent
Title? Or is this meant as some sort of hypothetical condition that
rules can look at (in which case there's no obvious reason to link
"gain" to "award"?).

It also seems possible that there's been a Rulekeepor error related to
the rule in question, and the online FLR doesn't match the actual
ruleset; I haven't looked into this.
}}}

OFF: CFJ 3925 Assigned to ais523

[Telna via agora-official]

(Accidentally sent this to BUS so reposting it here)

On 2021-09-01 11:46, Telna via agora-business wrote:

The below CFJ is 3925. I assign it to ais523.

=

If a Mad Scientist announces a random selection for a rule for a 
specified future week, and the ruleset doesn't change, e both can, and 
needs to, use that pick to fulfill eir weekly duties.


Called by G.: Tue Aug 31 2021 14:43:34

=

On 2021-09-01 00:42, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


CFJ: If a Mad Scientist announces a random selection for a rule for a
specified future week, and the ruleset doesn't change, e both can, and
needs to, use that pick to fulfill eir weekly duties.

Arguments:

For the "can" part of the cfj, Rule 2655 reads in part:

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

   a) Randomly select exactly one rule.

Now, we've generally accepted that random picks can be separate from
action emails (e.g. use a dice server to get a confirmably random number,
in a follow-up email perform the action that uses that number).  But what
if there's weeks of ahead-warning for what the pick will be?  Are random
picks well in advance on the dependent action still random, once 
published?


The counterargument is that "weekly duties...randomly select" means that
the random result can't be known to anyone (must still be random) until
you get to the appropriate week.

For the "needs to" part:

If a draw is published, and later taken back (assuming the ruleset hasn't
changed etc.), then the full selection process was biased in terms of
discarding the previous pick, and wasn't determined uniformly.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 30 Aug 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
Decision to Determine Public Confidence in the Judgement of CFJ 3922
Voting Ends Sat 04 Sep 2021 14:10:24

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3916 ais523
3918 Gaelan
3921 Jason
3922 R. Lee
3922 Murphy

Occasional Judges:
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aspen  [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
[None Currently]

SUSPENDED CASES
---
3922 Decision on Judgement Pending [Due Sat 04 Sep 2021 14:10:24]
 Judgement Mooted by Jason [Sat 28 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Wed 25 Aug 2021]
 ATMunn Recused [Mon 23 Aug 2021]
 Murphy Recused [Sun 15 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 Called by Aspen [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3923 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

3924 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus
 will flip to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.

3921 Judged FALSE by Jason [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

3919 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

OFF: [Arbitor] Decision to Determine Public Confidence in the Judgement of CFJ 3922 (Please Vote!)

[Telna via agora-official]

Having been entered into Moot, I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to 
determine public confidence in R. Lee's judgement of CFJ 3922.


For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor, the voting method 
is first-past-the-post, and the valid options and their consequences are 
listed below. (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes)

  * AFFIRM - uphold R. Lee's judgement as final
  * REMAND - reopen the case for reconsideration by R. Lee
  * REMIT  - reopen the case, recusing and barring R. Lee
The quorum for this decision is 6. Please note that a result of FAILED 
QUORUM is treated identically to AFFIRM.


CFJ 3922 and the judgement in question are quoted below for convenience, 
along with the intent to enter it into Moot.


On 2021-08-03 15:55, Aspen via agora-business wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business
 wrote:


I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:

Onboarding of Newly Activated Players

1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.

2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated
when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.

3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead to a
POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.


I'm afraid it's a bit unclear whether this worked. Submitting
proposals is governed by Rule 2350. There's specific information that
needs to be specified when you create a proposal. A lot of it is
optional, but the one thing that's absolutely essential is the text.
Here, it's unclear where the text of the proposal begins and ends.

I CFJ "D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days."

-Aspen



On 2021-08-25 11:37, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote:

D. Wet attempted to create a proposal in an unorthodox manner. Eir message
is quoted below.

[snip]

The question is whether this message is a proposal. A proposal CAN be
created by announcement, specifying its text (a proposal is a body of
text). Per rule 2350 other attributes may be specified as well, but these
are irrelevant here.

Usually text would be specified with quotation marks, brackets or the like.
Nonetheless, the words that are meant to be proposal text are clear to me
here. The message begins "I propose to", which are action words that
effectuate the requirement to announce. The rest of it is text that is
clearly meant to be proposal text ('create a new rule...') as they would
only have function inside a proposal. The process of 'specifying' proposal
text just needs to clearly distinguish text that's inside the proposal from
text that's outside of it. In this case the words "I propose to" are
clearly separated from the rest of the message's text not by formatting or
punctuation but by the purpose they serve. These words serve the functional
purpose of announcing the proposal while the other text only makes sense as
proposal text (this is clear to any reasonable Agoran reader).

'Specify' and 'clearly specify' are synonyms, as a specification will make
clear exactly what text is meant to be proposal text. If this is clear,
then obviously text is both specified and clearly specified.

I judge CFJ 3922 TRUE


--
R. Lee



On 2021-08-28 17:11, Aspen via agora-business wrote:

I intend, with 2 support, to enter this judgement into moot.

At this point, y'all are probably getting the feeling that I really
don't want this to be a proposal. That's sort of true. My personal
opinion is that this proposal didn't work, because to me the creation
of the proposal seemed ambiguous. However, I do have a more specific
reason for discontentment with this judgement.

I believe that the proposed reading fails to make sense of the text.
The first sentence of the message reads "I propose to create a new
Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted according to the current
rule adoption procedure." There is no sign in the punctuation of that
sentence that it should be split in two, with one part introducing a
proposal and the other part comprising the proposal's text. In fact,
to make this work, the reading actually has to break apart an
infinitive, leaving a dangling "to" that isn't really doing anything.
It just doesn't make syntactic sense. I realize that it does make
semantic sense, but I don't think we should ignore the clear
formatting of a message just because doing so produces a desired
result.

I'd like to pause here to note how extraordinary this interpretation
is. When I looked at this message, it did not even occur to me that
this interpretation was possible, despite the fact that I spent some
time thinking over possible interpretations. Even now, the
interpretation doesn't seem plausible to 

Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

CoE the deadline to judge is in a week's time not right now, 
republishing below.



Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Wed 25 Aug 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3922 Assigned to R. Lee(Reconsider) Due Wed 01 Sep 2021 00:59:57

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3916 ais523
3918 Gaelan
3921 Jason
3922 R. Lee
3922 Murphy

Occasional Judges:
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aspen  [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

Recused:

OPEN CASES
---
3922 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Wed 01 Sep 2021 00:59:57]
 ATMunn Recused [Mon 23 Aug 2021]
 Murphy Recused [Sun 15 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3923 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

3924 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by ais523 [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus
 will flip to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.

3921 Judged FALSE by Jason [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

3919 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Wed 25 Aug 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3922 Assigned to R. Lee(Reconsider) Due Wed 25 Aug 2021 00:59:57

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3916 ais523
3918 Gaelan
3921 Jason
3922 R. Lee
3922 Murphy

Occasional Judges:
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aspen  [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

Recused:

OPEN CASES
---
3922 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Wed 25 Aug 2021 00:59:57]
 ATMunn Recused [Mon 23 Aug 2021]
 Murphy Recused [Sun 15 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3923 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

3924 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by ais523 [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus
 will flip to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.

3921 Judged FALSE by Jason [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

3919 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to R. Lee

[Telna via agora-official]

Following recusal, I assign the reconsideration of CFJ 3922 to R. Lee.
(E favoured on discord)

On 2021-08-09 08:33, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

Telna wrote:


The below CFJ is 3922. I assign it to Murphy.

=

D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

Called by Aspen: Tue 03 Aug 2021 05:56:10

=

On 2021-08-03 15:55, Aspen via agora-business wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business
 wrote:


I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:

Onboarding of Newly Activated Players

1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.

2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be 
educated

when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.

3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead 
to a

POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.


I'm afraid it's a bit unclear whether this worked. Submitting
proposals is governed by Rule 2350. There's specific information that
needs to be specified when you create a proposal. A lot of it is
optional, but the one thing that's absolutely essential is the text.
Here, it's unclear where the text of the proposal begins and ends.

I CFJ "D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days."


The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107,
Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which part of
this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat
unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation
still leads to a proposal that, if adopted, would attempt to create a
rule. (Though that would bring up a similar question of whether
"Onboarding of Newly Activated Players" should be interpreted as that
rule's title, or part of its body text.)

TRUE.


On 2021-08-16 07:43, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

Aspen wrote:


On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:



On 8/8/2021 3:33 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107,
Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which 
part of

this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat
unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation
still leads to a proposal that,


I intend to motion to reconsider this judgement with 2 support.

In this judgement, the judge is (1) claiming the text is clearly
specified, but (2) then says it's somewhat unclear, but then (3) says 
any

reasonable interpretation works, but (4) then doesn't actually give an
interpretation, that's not clarifying at all (in direct contradiction to
the stated judgement).

Regardless of the fact that multiple interpretations might lead to a
proposal that gives the same result, that does not make a single text
clear, and a single text is required. If "any reasonable" interpretation
is possible, then there's no clear single interpretation, which the rule
requires.

-G.


I strongly support and do so.

-The Promotor, who likes knowing what e supposed to put in eir reports


I recuse myself from this CFJ, but request that the new judge address
how the absence of "clearly" in Rule 2350 (Proposals) affects this
case. (Obviously it would be a good thing to fix legislatively.)


On 2021-08-24 07:11, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:

On 8/15/2021 22:39, Telna via agora-official wrote:

Following recusal, I assign the reconsideration of CFJ 3922 to ATMunn.



I recuse myself from this case. I humbly apologize for not getting 
around to this sooner. I intended to judge this case, but I have been 
busier than expected recently.

OFF: [Arbitor] Rewards for Judging CFJs (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-official]

In accordance with Rule 2496 "Rewards", I grant coins as follows:

5 boatloads to Murphy for judging CFJ 3922
5 boatloads to G. for judging CFJ 3923
10 boatloads to Cuddlebeam for twice judging CFJ 3924

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 16 Aug 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3922 Assigned to ATMunn(Reconsider) Due Mon 23 Aug 2021 02:39:07

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3916 ais523
3918 Gaelan
3920 R. Lee
3921 Jason
3922 ATMunn

Occasional Judges:
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

Recused:
3922 Murphy [Sun 15 Aug 2021]

OPEN CASES
---
3922 Assigned to ATMunn [Due Mon 23 Aug 2021 02:39:07]
 Murphy Recused [Sun 15 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3923 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

3924 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by ais523 [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged FALSE by Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus
 will flip to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.

3921 Judged FALSE by Jason [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

3919 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to ATMunn

[Telna via agora-official]

Following recusal, I assign the reconsideration of CFJ 3922 to ATMunn.

On 2021-08-09 08:33, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

Telna wrote:


The below CFJ is 3922. I assign it to Murphy.

=

D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

Called by Aspen: Tue 03 Aug 2021 05:56:10

=

On 2021-08-03 15:55, Aspen via agora-business wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business
 wrote:


I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:

Onboarding of Newly Activated Players

1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.

2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be 
educated

when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.

3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead 
to a

POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.


I'm afraid it's a bit unclear whether this worked. Submitting
proposals is governed by Rule 2350. There's specific information that
needs to be specified when you create a proposal. A lot of it is
optional, but the one thing that's absolutely essential is the text.
Here, it's unclear where the text of the proposal begins and ends.

I CFJ "D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days."


The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107,
Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which part of
this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat
unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation
still leads to a proposal that, if adopted, would attempt to create a
rule. (Though that would bring up a similar question of whether
"Onboarding of Newly Activated Players" should be interpreted as that
rule's title, or part of its body text.)

TRUE.

I award myself Blue Glitter. Accordingly, I award myself 8 boatloads of
coins (iinm that's 176 coins).


On 2021-08-16 07:43, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

Aspen wrote:


On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:



On 8/8/2021 3:33 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:

The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107,
Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which 
part of

this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat
unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation
still leads to a proposal that,


I intend to motion to reconsider this judgement with 2 support.

In this judgement, the judge is (1) claiming the text is clearly
specified, but (2) then says it's somewhat unclear, but then (3) says 
any

reasonable interpretation works, but (4) then doesn't actually give an
interpretation, that's not clarifying at all (in direct contradiction to
the stated judgement).

Regardless of the fact that multiple interpretations might lead to a
proposal that gives the same result, that does not make a single text
clear, and a single text is required. If "any reasonable" interpretation
is possible, then there's no clear single interpretation, which the rule
requires.

-G.


I strongly support and do so.

-The Promotor, who likes knowing what e supposed to put in eir reports


I recuse myself from this CFJ, but request that the new judge address
how the absence of "clearly" in Rule 2350 (Proposals) affects this
case. (Obviously it would be a good thing to fix legislatively.)

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 09 Aug 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3922 Assigned to Murphy(Reconsider) Due Mon 16 Aug 2021 00:01:06
3923 Assigned to G. Due Mon 16 Aug 2021 01:43:59
3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam Due Mon 16 Aug 2021 01:48:14

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3918 Gaelan
3920 R. Lee
3921 Jason
3922 Murphy

Occasional Judges:
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]
3924 Cuddlebeam [Mon 09 Aug 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
3922 Assigned to Murphy [Due Mon 16 Aug 2021 00:01:06]
 Motion to Reconsider Filed by Aspen [Mon 09 Aug 2021]
 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 08 Aug 2021]
 D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

3923 Assigned to G. [Due Mon 16 Aug 2021 01:43:59]
 The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined
 in Regulation AM0.

3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [Due Mon 16 Aug 2021 01:48:14]
 Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus
 will flip to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3921 Judged FALSE by Jason [Tue 03 Aug 2021]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

3919 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

3918 Judged FALSE by Gaelan [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Each player may claim a justice card this Agoran week.

3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3924. I assign it to Cuddlebeam.

=

Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip to 
Legacy at the beginning of the next month.


Called by G.: Sat 07 Aug 2021 01:06:03

=

On 2021-08-07 11:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:


[lol sigh.  one more err want to get this exact.]

I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called.


I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my focus
to Compliance.


I CFJ:  Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip
to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.


Evidence:

Rule 2638/0[extract]
   An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus,
   specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by
   announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's
   Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by
   Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry
   Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped.

Arguments:

Rule 478/39 reads in part:
 Any action performed by sending a message is
performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in
messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they
appear in the message, unless otherwise specified.

The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole,
given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could
perform multiple actions simultaneously.  But I can't find a prohibition
against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit,
but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at
exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"?

OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3923. I assign it to G.

=

The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in Regulation AM0.

Called by Trigon: Fri 06 Aug 2021 22:24:15

=

On 2021-08-07 08:17, Trigon via agora-business wrote:

On 06/08/2021 21:38, Trigon via agora-official wrote:

The Retrieval Period of the Second Victory Auction of Jun 2021 having
ended at 13:07:41 on 6 August 2021, I hereby bring an end to this
auction.


BIDS ON THIS AUCTION


-- FOR THE WIN CARD --

[2021-07-21 05:38:48] Trigon 400cn
[2021-07-21 06:12:45] R. Lee 500cn
[2021-07-23 00:53:00] Falsifian  700cn
[2021-07-23 00:56:16] Trigon 800cn
[2021-07-23 23:57:57] *** G. ( 2^(82,589,933) − 1 )cn
[2021-07-24 16:49:34] *** G. (withdrawal)
[2021-07-27 14:29:49] Falsifian cn
[2021-07-30 02:28:28] (3) Trigon    1200cn
[2021-07-30 05:04:57] (2) R. Lee    1500cn
[2021-07-30 12:39:17] (1) Falsifian 1717cn
[2021-07-30 13:07:41] (4) D. Wet  22cn

-- FOR THE JUSTICE CARD --

[2021-07-21 06:12:45] (2) R. Lee   1cn
[2021-07-23 00:56:16] (1) Trigon  50cn

Bids marked with numbers in parenthesis are active bids.
Bids marked with asterisks are bids from withdrawn players.


DISTRIBUTION


Falsifian wins the first lot for 1717cn.
Trigon wins the second lot for 50cn.

No other lots exist.

If all of the following succeed I do them:
{ I revoke from Falsifian 1717cn. I grant em one victory card. }

If all of the following succeed I do them:
{ I revoke from Trigon 628cn. I grant em one justice card. }

CFJ: The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in 
Regulation AM0.


ARGUMENTS: This may not be a distribution message because of a textual 
error: I intended to award myself a new justice card for a price 578 
coins greater that what I bid on it. What, if anything, did this message 
do? Did it fail as it did not meet the criteria for a distribution 
message? Did the distribution message succeed and I just violated the 
"SHALL destroy and transfer" bit?


EVIDENCE:

Ambiguous quoted text:


Trigon wins the second lot for 50cn.

...

If all of the following succeed I do them:
{ I revoke from Trigon 628cn. I grant em one justice card. }


Relevant part of AM0:

   DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within
   seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period,
   create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message")
   that contains a full history of bids on the auction and
   withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each
   awardee and the lot e recieves. 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. Failing to publish a distribution message
   constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment.

OFF: [Arbitor] Rewards for Judging CFJs (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-official]

In accordance with Rule 2496 "Rewards", I grant coins as follows:

5 boatloads of coins to Gaelan for judging CFJ 3918
10 boatloads of coins to R. Lee for judging CFJs 3919 and 3920
5 boatloads of coins to Jason for judging CFJ 3921

OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to Murphy

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3922. I assign it to Murphy.

=

D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.

Called by Aspen: Tue 03 Aug 2021 05:56:10

=

On 2021-08-03 15:55, Aspen via agora-business wrote:

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business
 wrote:


I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:

Onboarding of Newly Activated Players

1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.

2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be educated
when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.

3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead to a
POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.


I'm afraid it's a bit unclear whether this worked. Submitting
proposals is governed by Rule 2350. There's specific information that
needs to be specified when you create a proposal. A lot of it is
optional, but the one thing that's absolutely essential is the text.
Here, it's unclear where the text of the proposal begins and ends.

I CFJ "D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days."

-Aspen

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 02 Aug 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3921 Assigned to Jason  Due Mon 09 Jul 2021 05:30:33

INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3911 Murphy
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3917 G.
3918 Gaelan
3920 R. Lee
3921 Jason

Occasional Judges:
3508 Cuddlebeam [Mon 29 May 2017]
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
3921 Assigned to Jason [Due Mon 09 Jul 2021 05:30:33]
 Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ,
 the entirety of the Ruleset means the following...

RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3920 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

3919 Judged TRUE by R. Lee [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

3918 Judged FALSE by Gaelan [Thu 22 Jul 2021]
 Each player may claim a justice card this Agoran week.

3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 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.

3917 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 17 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3917
 Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
 Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

3910 Judged TRUE by Gaelan [Wed 16 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

OFF: CFJ 3921 Assigned to Jason

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3921. I assign it to Jason.

=

Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ, the entirety of the Ruleset 
means the following:


This is the Ruleset for the game of Agora nomic, and X is the sole player
of this game. X can change the Ruleset in any manner they desire by 
publishing a sufficiently clear message detailing such changes to an 
Agoran mailing list.


Called by Cuddlebeam: Sun 25 July 2021 13:06:12

=

On 2021-07-25 23:05, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I CFJ the following:

"Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ, the entirety of the Ruleset
means the following:

This is the Ruleset for the game of Agora nomic, and X is the sole player
of this game. X can change the Ruleset in any manner they desire by
publishing a sufficiently clear message detailing such changes to an Agoran
mailing list."

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Tue 20 Jul 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3918 Assigned to Gaelan Due Tue 27 Jul 2021 14:45:01
3919 Assigned to R. Lee Due Tue 27 Jul 2021 14:54:44
3920 Assigned to R. LeePossibly Due Tue 27 Jul 2021 14:56:59


INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3911 Murphy
3914 Jason
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3917 G.
3918 Gaelan
3920 R. Lee

Occasional Judges:
3508 Cuddlebeam [Mon 29 May 2017]
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
3918 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Tue 27 Jul 2021 14:45:01]
 Each player may claim a justice card this Agoran week.

3919 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Tue 27 Jul 2021 14:54:44]
 Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

3920 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Tue 27 Jul 2021 14:56:59]*
 This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.
(*CFJ 3920 might or might not exist, contingent on the judgement of 3919)


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 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.

3917 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 17 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3917
 Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
 Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

3910 Judged TRUE by Gaelan [Wed 16 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

OFF: CFJ 3920 Assigned to R. Lee

[Telna via agora-official]

If it exists, the below CFJ is 3920. I assign it to R. Lee.

=

This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

Called by Trigon

=



On 2021-07-13 15:30, Trigon via agora-business wrote:

I call the following CFJ: This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

Caller's Evidence: This message sure seems to think so.

So as not to be dinged for No Faking, it is completely possible that nothing 
here worked.

OFF: CFJ 3919 Assigned to R. Lee

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3919. I assign it to R. Lee.

=

Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

Called by Telna: 20 Jul 2021 14:51:15

=



On 2021-07-21 00:51, Telna via agora-business wrote:

I call a CFJ: Trigon initiated a Call for Judgement in the below message.

(There's enough uncertainty in the arguments given in the Happy Tuesday 
thread that this makes sense to question)



On 2021-07-13 15:30, Trigon via agora-business wrote:

I call the following CFJ: This CFJ was called on 13 Jul 2021.

Caller's Evidence: This message sure seems to think so.

So as not to be dinged for No Faking, it is completely possible that 
nothing here worked.

OFF: CFJ 3918 Assigned to Gaelan

[Telna via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3918. I assign it to Gaelan.

=

Each player may claim a justice card this Agoran week.

Called by R. Lee: 12 Jul 2021 05:12:33

=

On 2021-07-12 15:12, Rebecca Lee via agora-business wrote:

I call a CFJ: Each player may claim a justice card this Agoran week.

Rule 2478 states in relevant part "The player who initiated the most Finger
Pointings that resulted

   in a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice in the previous
   Agoran Week CAN once grant emself a Justice Card by announcement."

The rule provides nothing about ties. Last Agoran week, everybody was
tied in having pointed 0 such fingers. Does that mean everyone gets
one, or that only a singular 'player'  can get one?

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 12 Jul 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[None currently]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3873 R. Lee
3910 Gaelan
3911 Murphy
3914 Jason
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3917 G.

Occasional Judges:
3508 Cuddlebeam [Mon 29 May 2017]
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
[None currently]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 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.

3917 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 17 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3917
 Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
 Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

3910 Judged TRUE by Gaelan [Wed 16 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 05 Jul 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[None currently]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3873 R. Lee
3910 Gaelan
3911 Murphy
3914 Jason
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3917 G.

Occasional Judges:
3508 Cuddlebeam [Mon 29 May 2017]
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
[None currently]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 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.

3917 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 17 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3917
 Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
 Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

3910 Judged TRUE by Gaelan [Wed 16 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Telna via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Mon 28 Jun 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[None currently]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND EIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3873 R. Lee
3910 Gaelan
3911 Murphy
3914 Jason
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3917 G.

Occasional Judges:
3508 Cuddlebeam [Mon 29 May 2017]
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
[None currently]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 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.

3917 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 17 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3917
 Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
 Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

3910 Judged TRUE by Gaelan [Wed 16 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

OFF: Arbitor Assignment Policy

[Telna via agora-official]

In this message, I would like to set forth my policy regarding what 
factors will go into the assignment of judges to CFJs.


1) The Judge Lists

Rule 991 "Calls for Judgement" states:
> The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested 
players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
To track which players are interested, we have judge lists. We currently 
have two - ordinary judges and occasional judges. However, as the idea 
of an occasional judge seems somewhat ill-defined, I'd like to expand 
this to three.


* Ordinary / Regular Judges
These players will form the main rotation, and depending on the other 
factors listed below judges will typically be assigned in order through 
this list. Note that I'll often be looking to batch-assign CFJs to offer 
a little more flexibility in matching suitable judges without breaking 
up this rotation. Ordinary Judges can expect to be writing a judgement 
weekly if the caseload is not especially light (which it currently is).

* Occasional Judges
These players are perhaps not willing or able to commit to judging 
regular cases, but would still like the opportunity to judge 
occasionally. The occasional judge panel serves these roles. Firstly, if 
there is a heavy caseload, these players will be assigned cases off the 
top to prevent judges from being overwhelmed. Secondly, depending on the 
size of the panel, I'll be looking to assign each occasional judge a 
case once a month (Note that the deadline for judging is still one week 
unless you elect to extend it).

* Overflow Judges
These players do not have a rotation at all, and in ideal circumstances 
will never see a case. However, if we have a heavy caseload or a case 
that no ordinary or occasional judge is willing and able to take up, the 
excess cases will be assigned to overflow judges to help keep the system 
working. If you're the sort of person who isn't really up for judging 
but would still like to help out if necessary, you should sign up for 
the overflow judge list.


2) Favouring and Disfavouring

A player is allowed to opt-in or opt-out of judging a case depending on 
eir circumstances. If you disfavour a case, I will not assign it to you. 
If you favour a case, then I will assign it to you unless either you 
have been crowding out others from judging or there is a significant 
conflict of interest (I'll ask politely in either instance). Please do 
not hesitate to favour and disfavour cases as you feel appropriate.


3) Fairness and Smooth Operation

Rule 991 "Calls for Judgement" states:
> The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of 
justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora.
Agora has plenty of ways to ensure fairness for itself (Motions, Moots, 
etc) and these all frankly lead to more work for the Arbitor - clearly 
it is in eir best interest to assign judges such that they get to the 
right answer the first time. The main thing to watch out for here, 
therefore, is avoiding conflicts of interest. Note that simply posting 
an opinion doesn't qualify as a conflict here; I'm looking out for 
players with the ability to materially gain from a case. Eligible Judges 
who post gratuitous arguments that do not stir up controversy are also 
more likely to receive the case emselves, as they are clearly already 
thinking about the case. (If you are looking to get assigned to a 
particular case, however, please just favour it and avoid the subtlety!)
Activity also matters a little bit here, particularly for cases that 
require an urgent resolution. If you are assigned an urgent case and 
cannot judge it quickly, please recuse yourself as soon as this becomes 
apparent so it can be reassigned.

Please also note Rule 2492 "Recusal":
> The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that 
judge has violated a time limit for judging the case and has not judged 
it in the mean time; the Arbitor SHALL do so in a timely fashion after 
the time limit expires, if able. The Arbitor CAN recuse an inactive or 
deregistered judge by announcement. If a judge is recused from a case 4+ 
days after being assigned to it, e SHOULD NOT be assigned as a judge 
until e has apologised and or reasonably explained eir actions.
I will of course look to give a warning if a case is overdue, and only 
move to recusal if I don't hear back from the judge. Most of all, I 
simply ask you to be aware of the due date for cases assigned to you - 
after all, a case judged late is not eligible for rewards!


In Summary:
 - Ordinary judges form the main rotation, Occasional judges receive 
monthly cases, Overflow judges only get cases if the system us overwhelmed
 - Favour cases you want, disfavour cases you don't want (but don't 
expect to receive a case if you're already judging one)
 - Material conflicts of interest will be avoided, and activity is 
important for urgent cases


Thank you for reading!

OFF: [Arbitor] Investigation of Gaelan

[Telna via agora-official]

On 2021-06-16 13:49, N. S. via agora-business wrote:

Ugh okay according to discord I have to name a specific rule or crime. I
point a finger at nch for tardiness late webmastor and gaelan tardiness
referee


The previous Arbitor, G., already responded to a previous attempt to 
levy this same finger. I quote eir investigation below and conclude it 
similarly.


On 2021-06-16 12:14, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>
> On 6/15/2021 6:52 PM, N. S. via agora-business wrote:
>> I point my finger at gaelan for late referee
>
> Guilty of Tardiness as per Rule 2143, no particular mitigating factors,
> defined 2 blot penalty, forgivable, by this imposed Cold Hand Of Justice
> is hereby LEVIED.
>
> Apology words:
>
> kinkajou
> breviloquence
> subluxation
> vint
> katharometer
> mellification
> caconym
> delphically
> anemocracy
> guayabera
>
> (credit: https://randomwordgenerator.com/weird-word.php)
>

OFF: [Arbitor] Rewards for Judging CFJs (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-official]

In accordance with Rule 2496 "Rewards", I grant coins as follows:

5 boatloads of coins to ais523 for judging CFJ 3916
5 boatloads of coins to Gaelan for judging CFJ 3910
5 boatloads of coins to G. for judging CFJ 3917

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette (@ADoP)

[Telna via agora-official]

I deputise for Arbitor (the office is vacant) to publish the following 
report:


Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Tue 22 Jun 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
[None currently]


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
Regular Judges:
3873 R. Lee
3910 Gaelan
3911 Murphy
3914 Jason
3915 ATMunn
3916 ais523
3917 G.

Occasional Judges:
3508 Cuddlebeam [Mon 29 May 2017]
3888 nix[Sat 28 Nov 2020]
3899 Falsifian  [Tue 23 Feb 2021]
3907 Aris   [Sat 05 Jun 2021]

Overflow Judges:
[None currently]

OPEN CASES
---
[None currently]


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3915 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Mon 21 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3915
 Aris bought strength at least once in the below message.

3914 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3914
 A player who possesses 3 Blots cannot change their Voting Strength
 via Buying Strength.

3913 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 20 Jun 2021]
 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.

3917 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 17 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3917
 Trigon fulfilled eir obligation to track the Unit of
 Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.

3910 Judged TRUE by Gaelan [Wed 16 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3910
 Proposal 8559, when taking effect, modified the text of Rule 1742
 by adding a new paragraph.

3916 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 14 Jun 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3916
 G.'s attempt to deputise for Prime Minister on or about
 Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:39:36 -0700 was effective.

OFF: [Press] Payroll

[Telna via agora-official]

I publish the below report as Editor of the Agoran Press contract.


Credit balances are as follows:

lucidiot:  1
Telna: 1

Recent history (not self-ratifying):
2021-03-07: Falsifian earns one Credit for summarizing 2021-02-22..28.
2021-03-10: Falsifian takes 41 Coins three times, destroying eir three 
credits.

2021-03-14: Falsifian earns one Credit for summarizing 2021-03-01..07.
2021-03-28: Falsifian earns one Credit for summarizing 2021-03-15..21.
2021-04-04: Falsifian takes 42 Coins twice, destroying eir two credits.
2021-06-21: Telna earns one Credit for summarising 2021-06-14..20.

OFF: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[Telna via agora-official]

LAST WEEK IN AGORA: 14-20 June 2021
Agoran Press Weekly Report


# Summary

The rush of proposals from the economy reset continues! Many of them are 
being passed, including a victory proposal by Aris and a group of secret 
proposals by ATMunn.


Four wins achieved through four different methods find their way into 
the Scroll of Agora, and Aris becomes Speaker. There's also a good 
amount of uncertainty regarding the Prime Minister thanks to a 
seemingly-failed deputisation and election. We also see R. Lee deputise 
for Referee and quickly assert themselves in the role.


With the economy having just been reset, many players are working to 
gather up resources. Of particular note is Cuddlebeam, who is pushing 
very hard to amass Victory Cards as quickly as possible. Will we have an 
early economic win?


G. resigns Arbitor to take a summer break from the game. Thank you for 
your hard work, especially with the CFJ archives!


Lastly, we see trouble on IRC with the death of freenode and Agora 
looking to put together a replacement on libera.chat. More news as this 
story develops.



# New players

* Telna rejoins Agora, having last participated in 2020.

* surprise joins Agora for the first time - welcome!


# Proposals

* It's been a busy time for proposals! The recent economic reset has led 
to many players cashing in their pendants, leading to two very 
proposal-heavy weeks.


* Passed proposals that took effect last week include:

  * Automatic quarterly election cycles for Officers

  * The Discord server at https://discord.gg/tz2u6m7 becoming an 
official Discussion forum


  * No more automatic co-authorship for proposal penders (sorry, Lime 
Ribbon chasers!)


  * Aris bribing eir way to victory

* Proposals currently being voted on include:

  * Allowing Silver Quills to be awarded to proposal co-authors

  * Adding a delay to stone-based win resets

  * Giving players eir Grants on an economic reset

  * Four secret proposals from ATMunn using SHA hashes to keep the 
contents private (for now)


  * Plus a LOT of bugfixes and clarity proposals.

* With the economy reset, there have been NO new proposals submitted! 
This Reportor looks forward to seeing what players will be using the 
saved Pendants on.



# Victory and culture

* Many wins that were earned over the past month were this week awarded 
places in the Scroll of Agora:


  * Falsifican wins through collecting 5 stones, and again through 
Economic Takeover (having triggered our second economic reset under the 
current system).


  * Gaelan wins through Paradox, thanks to CFJ 3907 and a missing 
protection on pledges.


  * Aris wins through old-fashioned bribery, pushing through a proposal 
that awarded Black Ribbons to its supporters.


* Additionally, the 2020 Silver Quills were awarded to nix for creating 
Card Sets and Aris for Buoyancy, together forming the most engaging 
economy Agora has seen in many years.



# Economics

* As it is the beginning of a new economy, many Card trades have been 
taking place as players aim to collect sets reflecting eir priorities.


  * Most active here by far has been Cuddlebeam, who has been cashing 
in many promises and creating several contracts to gather Victory Cards 
at a rapid pace. Falsifican, ATMunn, and Jason have been reviving and 
debugging the Obstructive Pooling contract as a response - will they 
succeed in preventing the rushed victory?


* The monthly stone auction concluded, with two stones going to G. and 
one to Jason for a total cost of 630 coins.



# Justice

* ATMunn picked up two blots for Tardiness on eir Notary report due to a 
month-old self-finger-point.


* Trigon picked up two blots for missing the Unit of Flotation on eir 
Treasuror reports.


* Telna was warned for Unjustified Gesticulation - An initial intent to 
Indict for two blots was lodged (due to Telna pointing the finger at 
emself in order to chase Justice Cards), but 1.5 Agoran Consent was not 
obtained.



# The judiciary

* Cases judged last week include:

  * CFJ 3910 - lacking specific instruction, text appended to a rule 
inherits its formatting from the proposal appending it.


  * CFJs 3913/3914 - Buying Strength when blotted does not bypass the 
voting strength limitations


  * CFJ 3916 - petitions must be directed at a specific office, not 
just a person who happens to be an officer


  * CFJ 3917 - a failed appeal of Trigon's sentence re: tracking the 
Unit of Flotation


* Currently open cases include:

  * CFJ 3915 - performing fee-based actions without specifying intent 
to pay the fee



# Offices

* R. Lee picked up the office of Referee from Gaelan through 
deputisation. Let justice be done once again!


* Aris becomes Speaker as the most recent winner.

* An election is ongoing for the office of Prime Minister! There's been 
a lot of confusion here as G. initially attempted to deputise for PM and 
initiate an election, but that deputisation appears to have failed. 
Nonetheless, the