Oh, I mostly just did that because I thought it was mildly amusing. I'm not actually expecting it to get through without the required number of objections (or, indeed, for the CFJ to go 4 days without Murphy assigning it to a different judge).
Though if I _did_ do that, would it not be more efficient to enter the judgement into Moot instead of initiating a new CFJ? What is the reason for preferring a second CFJ? -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I object, and will note that it really is considered Bad Form/Sportsmanship > around here to judge something with this degree of self-interest. If you > assign it to yourself, I'd be tempted to call a second CFJ with the same > statement, with the note "please ignore twg's precedent, e should have > recused emself". > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris. > > I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to > > assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying > > attention... > > -twg > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 PM, D Margaux [email protected] > > wrote: > > > > > :-D > > > From Aris: > > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > > > > of > > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > > > > > > My response: > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ is > > > TRUE. > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > > besides 1. > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > > number other than 1. > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > > judged TRUE. > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > Fun!! > > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > > interested): > > > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > > > > announcements, > > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > > R1728: > > > > > > > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > > > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure > > > > the > > > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the > > > > value of > > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e > > > > refers to > > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that > > > > N=1. > > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the > > > > "default" > > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > > > > N=1. > > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice > > > > attempt, > > > > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > > > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, > > > > > myself > > > > > and twg. > > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > > > > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the > > > > > Game, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining on > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parade. > > > > > -D Margaux > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > > > From: D Margaux [email protected] > > > > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > > > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > > > > To: Agora Business [email protected] > > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it > > > > > seems > > > > > only fair to warn everyone--I plan to issue 2 blot unforgiveable > > > > > fines this > > > > > upcoming Thursday for any weekly/monthly reports that are due today > > > > > and are > > > > > not submitted by end of day on this upcoming Wednesday. If there are > > > > > more > > > > > than 3 such late reports, then I plan to invoke R2532 to have my > > > > > zombie > > > > > Point eir Finger at the additional people, since I can't issue SJ to > > > > > more > > > > > than three people. I suspect that use of my zombie could be > > > > > controversial, > > > > > but Finger Pointing isn't listed as an excluded action by R2532, so I > > > > > think > > > > > it is permitted. Let me know if any one disagrees with that, though, > > > > > and I > > > > > might not do it that way. Also, maybe somewhat less controversially, I > > > > > note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke R2465 on > > > > > Thursday > > > > > with regard to any players at that time who are located on (-2, 2), > > > > > which I > > > > > think is my land, but if any one objects to that then I won't. Thanks.
