COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
May contain inadvertent errors due to newbie arbitor
learning the ropes.
Open cases (CFJs)
-----------------
3674 called by twg 15 October 2018, assigned to Aris 20 October 2018,
re-assigned to Aris 11 November 2018: "In the quoted message, G.
objected to at least one intent to perform a dependent action."
3687 called by Gaelan 5 November 2018, assigned to Murphy 10 November
2018: "There are two Shoguns."
3688 called by D. Margaux 11 November 2018, assigned to G. 11 November
2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt to assign a judgement to CFJ 3672 was
EFFECTIVE."
3689 called by D. Margaux 12 November 2018, assigned to Murphy 14
November 2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt on 11 November 2018 to delete
language from the Living Zombie contract was EFFECTIVE."
Highest numbered case: 3689
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3682 (formerly CFJ 3678), called by twg 31 October 2018, judged FALSE
by Murphy 4 November 2018: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
D. Margaux 3675, 3668, 3669, 3652, 3672, 3685, 3686
[10/02 10/20 10/20 10/27 10/29 11/2 11/2]
G. 3667, 3679, 3680, 3681, 3688
[10/20 11/2 11/2 10/29 11/11]
Murphy 3652, 3676, 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689
[10/20 10/21 11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14]
Trigon 3670, 3671, 3673, 3683, 3684
[10/20 10/20 10/20 11/1 11/1]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
ATMunn 3665, 3666
[10/20 10/20]
(These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court
will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will
generally be honored, even for non-court judges.)
Context/arguments/evidence
--------------------------
*** 3674 context:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red>
Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one
intent to perform a dependent action."
Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ
1460, an action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort"
is not required to determine what the action is. To determine exactly
what actions G. took here, one would need to carefully read each of
the messages sent to the public fora in the last 14 days, forming a
list of the intents to perform dependent actions in those messages
(including any and all inconspicuous or obfuscated such intents), and
evaluate which of those meet the criteria listed in G.'s message. I
believe this is "unreasonably excessive".
-twg
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin
<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I vote AGAINST proposals 8105 and 8107.
> > I vote FOR proposals 8106, 8108, 8109 and 8110.
>
> hmmm on 8107 vote there.
>
> I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections
> (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other
> than myself in the last 14 days.
>
> (I don't think this catches anything legit, but if so lmk and
> I'll remove my objection).
*** 3682 (formerly CFJ 3678) judge Murphy's judgement:
D. Margaux wrote:
> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
>>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G.
>>> performed
>>>> one or more regulated actions.”
>>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <
>>>> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
Interpreting the somewhat informal date/time spec as "on or about
3:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time (-0700) on October 27, 2018"
(presumably caller's intent, and if not then e can submit another):
The only public message from G. that meets this spec is the one
quoted by the caller (archive link in evidence). To the best of my
knowledge, it was genuinely an empty message (unregulated), and
neither that message nor any non-public message e may have sent
around the same time triggered any non-obvious recordkeeping duties or
the like. As usual, if evidence to the contrary later emerges (e.g. a
relevant encrypted contract is revealed), then this judgement should be
appealed accordingly.
FALSE.
Evidence:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039429.html
*** 3687 caller's arguements from Gaelan:
CFJ: “There are two Shoguns.”
Arguments:
Twg is a shogun per 2510/3 ("The player with the highest karma (if
any) is the Shogun.”)
Michael has the patent title of Shogun.
2510 says “the Shogun,” which implies there is only one. Does that
make Michael lose the patent title?
Gaelan
***3687 gratuitous arguements from G.:
Gratuitous:
I think this is very similar/identical to CFJ 1298:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1298
which found that the entity that the Rules at the time called the
"Distributor" was not the same as the Patent Title Distributor
that had been previously awarded - to this day the Patent Title
Distributor and the (now-Office) Distributor are different.
***3688 context (arguements from 3681, which involves the same issue)
Ah, you're right. I used this in a different way last year and thought
we fixed that definition.
I favor this CFJ.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
> >>
> >>> 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
> >>> October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
> >>> by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
> >>> expungement of Trigon's blot."
> >>
> >> I issue a cabinet order of certiorari to assign CFJ 3672 to myself.
> >
> > Er, you need to recuse Trigon first, right? Otherwise it's not an open
> > case.
> >
> > That sort of settles this issue of competing judges. Regardless of PM
> > status, you need to act as Arbitor to recuse Trigon before you attempt
> > to assign to yourself.
>
> I think I disagree. The case open and assigned. Under Rule 991:
> > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or assigned
> > exactly one judgement.
>
> Certiorari doesn’t require the case to be unassigned, just that it is open:
> > Certiorari (Arbitor): The Prime Minister assigns emself as judge of a
> > specified open case.
>
>
*** 3688 context (supposedly temporary judgement from G. on 3681,
which inadvertently became permanent)
I judge 3681 DISMISS.
Arguments: This is for the sole purpose of preventing D. Margaux
from using Certiorari to grab this judgement after 1-Nov (I might
not finish the judgement before then). I'll file a motion and
reconsider and assign an actual judgement within the time limit for
doing so.
[It doesn't benefit em at all to grab this case, but you never
know who's going to get clever about it! :P ]
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> D. Margaux wrote:
> > I CFJ this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to assign CFJ
> > 3672 to emself was EFFECTIVE.”
>
>
> G. wrote:
>
> > I favor this CFJ.
>
> The above is CFJ 3681. I assign it to G.
***3689 caller's arguement from D. Margaux:
I just noticed that the contract doesn’t say I can delete text “by
announcement” or by any other particular method. I *think* my attempt
was EFFECTIVE, however, because (1) Rule 1742 says “A contract may be
modified, including by changing the set of parties, by agreement
between all existing parties” and (2) all existing parties “agree[d]”
to allow me to amend the contract by deleting text enclosed in
brackets.
Unlike when I tried to throw everyone’s coins in the Fountain, I think
Rule 2125 doesn’t pose an obstacle to this amendment. Rule 2125 says
in relevant part: “A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly
specified in the Rules for performing the given action.” I think the
amendment I made was performed as described by the Rules—the Rules say
that contracts can be amended by agreement, and the parties’ agreement
says I can amend it by deleting text. So, the parties have agreed to
this, and so the Rule authorizing contract amendments is satisfied.
***3689 pre-amendment contract:
The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.
Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
{
Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to take any
action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,
Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
support for or objection to a dependent action,
Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to support
or object to a dependent action,
Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
NOT change.
}
Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.
On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.
Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
//////
***3689 attempt to amend contract:
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:13 PM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I amend the Living Zombie contract by deleting this text in quote marks: “Any
> party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw support
> for or objection to a dependent action,”
>
> As a result, the contract now reads:
>
>
> //////
>
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
>
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
>
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
>
> {
>
> Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to take any
> action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,
>
> Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to support
> or object to a dependent action,
>
> Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
> or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
> NOT change.
>
> }
>
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
>
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
>
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
>
> //////
