Also (as the person who made this paragraph because I couldn't be
assed to format bullet points), we really need to fix that massive
sentence with a bracketed list within the first clause regarding when
cards may be imposed.

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So there's actually two limitations periods. The seven-day period for
> CHoJ and the fourteen-day one for overall response and Summary
> Judgement. The seven-day period should probably be tolled by pending
> CFJ, but I'm not sure about tolling the fortnight period. I suppose
> the fortnight period should be tolled if there is a Finger Pointed
> _and_ a CFJ but not otherwise? But I still see no need for tolling
> because it is simple to just card for the offense while the CFJ is
> pending and then have that card have never happened due to the CFJ if
> it comes out the other way.
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 10:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>>> >
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Reply via email to