:) Thought you might be pulling our legs, but also realized it hadn't come up
lately so I thought I'd mention the Bad Form thing for people in general.
If I were really concerned, and it was a time issue, I might call the second
CFJ before you delivered the first answer. The judgements would come out
around the same time (so we'd have a neutral answer on the table), then we
could moot yours if the two judgements disagreed.
But you're right that if time wasn't an issue (and I guess resolving this win
isn't super-pressing, it doesn't cascade into other game uncertainties), then
just mooting yours would be cleaner in the long run....
-G.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
