And, in case I still wasn't referee, I resolve this other finger-pointing
as indicated below.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 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
> >
>

Reply via email to