Fair enough. (I think the proto is important in this case though - a CFJ should stop the 14-day clock on punishment).
Given that there has been no time in the recent past that I had sufficient support to do the job in question within the time limit, my initial attempt that failed was as good as any other attempt would have been. I find Shenanigans. On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > That's not needed. The rules say punishment CAN only be imposed if a > rule is broken so the Ref can simply impose punishment and then if the > CFJ rules otherwise, the punishment never happened in the first place. > Or not, if he so chooses. The Ref is entitled to rule finger-pointing > as Shenanigans even when it is not Shenanigans if e believes sincerely > there is no breach. > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not. > > > > Proto: Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the > > referee: Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an > > existing CFJ. > > > > On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > >> I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each > >> inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related > >> to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself. > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant > >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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". > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> From V.J. Rada > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
