Without 3 objections, I do so. -Aris
On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:39 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". > >> >> > >> >> > > >
