I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself.

-Aris

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway.  Here's a CFJ!]
>
> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran consent:
> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> - 天火狐
> - Telnaior
> - omd (zombie)
> - o (zombie)
> - nichdel (zombie)
> - pokes (zombie)
> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following any
> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail.
>
>
> I free-CFJ on the following:  In the first Eastman week of April 2018,
> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a message to
> a public forum in the preceding month.
>
>
> Caller's Arguments
>
> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the requirements of
> R2139.  Further arguments in this conversation:
>
>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have fulfilled
>> >> > the
>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
>> >> >
>> >> >        In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
>> >> >        attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a message to
>> >> >        a public forum in the preceding month.
>> >>
>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with methods
>> >> that
>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something.
>> >>
>> >> I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never followed
>> >> through
>> >> on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given that other
>> >> supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no one carried
>> >> through."
>> >>
>> >> Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do it, if I
>> >> purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to be invalid,
>> >> I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement.
>> >>
>> >> Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the intent is
>> >> resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I hereby do X
>> >> with
>> >> 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never announced intent.
>> >> That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then happens to
>> >> succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and got support.
>> >>
>> >> I don't know the answer to any of these.  But I'm willing to bet that IF
>> >> I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry out the intent
>> >> if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), then a CFJ
>> >> would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my official duty even
>> >> if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set a new
>> >> precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from official duties
>> >> in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it still count as
>> >> "an attempt".
>> >>
>> >>
>

Reply via email to