The difference though is that only a Herald CAN publish a Herald's report
and SHALL do so. When "vacant" is the Herald (and I admit that "vacant" is
the Herald and is liable, but this is because the Officeholder switch
specifically allows vacant as an officeholder), no provision of the rules
Well, e probably succeeded in solving the past power problem. E doesn’t
seem to have succeeded with preventing retroaction though.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:50 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote:
> > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face
This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
question, barring Aris
{If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
players playing the game that week have violated the rule,
The person who had that idea is me. I’m not interested in holding Herald
though; if I did it, it be as your deputy. As the Herald, it’s your
prerogative to control the Birthday Tournament if you wish to, as the fair
reward for the work you’ll be doing.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:49 PM Rance
This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
(malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum
prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
criminal
Please disregard! I am trying to verify that the alignment problems with this
report are fixed. Mailman wasn't able to read the newline characters when I
sent it before but it looks fine when sent to my email.
I deputize to publish the Herald's weekly report below.
[I think someone had
Gah, sorry D. Margaux.
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:30:06 -0400
From: Jason Cobb
To: D. Margaux
I'll point out that in that example, both parties were each committing
an
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Under the present conditions,
> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should
> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t
> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that
Rule 869 ("How to Join and Leave Agora"):
> Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered (default)
> and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. Changes to citizenship
> are secured. A registered person is a Player. To "register"
> someone is to flip that person's Citizenship switch
Is there any rules against creating a bunch of extra emails, registering
them to Agora, and then not doing anything until they become a zombie and
claiming them?
Alright. I dispute your conclusions in these two paragraphs:
“Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by
paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least once
in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means that
“[f]ailing to
The officeholder switch for the office of Herald has been set to vacant for
approximately 5 weeks. By rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) and 2510
(Such is Karma), vacant SHALL publish the Herald's weekly report each week.
This has not happened for the past 5 weeks. At the same time
We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted
so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my
interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will
be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only
the
The Ritual, however, isn't one!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an
> Officer
> > report. An Officer report SHALL be
On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer
> report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret
> such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but
> any
Also, I wrote some text arguing that D. Margaux is correct about the
document self-ratifying itself into being legal. It didn't end up
being relevant to my judgement, but I've already written it, so I
might as well publish it. (It's similar to the first draft of this
section, but I added two
Based on the recent discussion, here are my revised judgements. This
are due fairly soon; I'll probably publish it tomorrow morning in the
UTC-4 time zone (so, maybe around 13:00-ish) even though that feels a
bit rushed.
In case it's not clear, I'm pretty sure D. Margaux has 0 blots now,
and
I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer
report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret
such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but
any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for
That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of the
rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your
interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in the
text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we
The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone
SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the
responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who
SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action
isn’t
twg is 100% correct on this, i have a very clear memory of this being the
law based on a prime minister election i resolved as ADoP.
HOWEVER, this CFJ regards the ability of Corona to be installed as Prime
Minister, not to be a candidate in the election, by the plain text of the
actual CFJ, and
Hm, maybe in the hypothetical timeline the act of publishing can be thought
of as performative, so it's by definition correct. At least, that's how I
think of messages that successfully cause actions to be performed.
Still thinking about CFJ retroactivity though.
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:36
In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment
on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
instant if
Ahh, yes, that is embarrassing. The accuracy of the report is rather the
entire point of the case. I got so caught up in the question of how the
retroactivity worked out that I forgot the actual object of the case. My
apologies.
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:22 PM James Cook wrote:
> Wasn't
I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote:
> Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
> reports?
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
>
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
reports?
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:
Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
-Aris
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:
> In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
> report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
> at that exact time.
>
>
In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
at that exact time.
Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
E said:
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
But there is no mechanism for em to do
I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't
specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a
specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly
unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual
was never explicitly
Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian regarding the
Ritual; comments welcome.
* * *
The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the Ritual
CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under Rule 2531, among
other things, a fine is
Ah, sorry, I just checked, and I registered 90 minutes too late to vote
in this election. Probably for the best anyway as I still don't really
know who people are.
Jason Cobb
On 6/3/19 2:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I'm happy to! My platform was that I was working to resolve the
inactivity
On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +, James Cook wrote:
> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order:
>
> omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg,
> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb,
> Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L,
I'm happy to! My platform was that I was working to resolve the
inactivity crisis of the time [1]. It's less of a crisis now (though
more offices than usual are still empty), partially because of my
work. I sent the message I linked, and I've also taken on the duties
of the Arbitor as I said I
36 matches
Mail list logo
