COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Date of this report: 03 Dec 2018
Date of last report: 16 Nov 2018
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)
-----------------
3690 called by twg 30 November 2018, assigned to ATMunn 2 December
2018: "G. possesses at least one blot."
3691 called by Jacob Arduino 2 December 2018, assigned to G. 2
December 2018: "'the last person to vote FOR a proposal' is the last
person to submit a ballot regarding that proposal which evaluates to
FOR."
Highest numbered case: 3691
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3674 called by twg 15 October 2018, judged DISMISS by Aris 18 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, judged FALSE by Murphy 11
November 2018: "There are two Shoguns."
3688 called by D. Margaux 11 November 2018, judged FALSE by G. 16
November 2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt to assign a judgement to CFJ 3672
was EFFECTIVE."
3689 called by D. Margaux 12 November 2018, judged TRUE by Murphy 18
November 2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt on 11 November 2018 to delete
language from the Living Zombie contract was EFFECTIVE."
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
D. Margaux 3685, 3686
[11/2 11/2]
G. 3679, 3680, 3688, 3691
[11/2 11/2 11/11 12/2]
Murphy 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689
[11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14]
Trigon 3683, 3684
[11/1 11/1]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
ATMunn 3690
[12/2]
(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).
*** 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 judgement from Murphy:
Patent Titles are generally records of something that occurred in the
past, not something that is currently ongoing. We previously had
Ephemeral Patent Titles that did correspond to ongoing things and were
revoked afterward, and if the rules (a) currently defined those, (b)
defined Shogun as being one, and (c) took precedence over the Karma
rule, then that would be different.
FALSE.
***3674 judgment from Aris:
So I did. I DISSMISS CFJ 3674.
On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 5:59 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> My copy of the Ruleset contains no such judgement as DISCHARGE. You
> probably meant DISMISS? (Given that you still resolved the actual issue,
> INSUFFICIENT is probably inappropriate.)
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> > I'm running out of time to judge CFJ 3674. I'm planning to write up a
> > longer opinion later, and am sorry I've been so busy.
> >
> > Summary verdict:
> > I judge DISCHARGE in CFJ 3674, because the caller hasn't outlined
> > whether there were in fact any intentions to perform actions without
> > objection at that time. However, I further rule that were there any
> > intents to perform actions without N objections, the intent would have
> > succeeded, because objections are counted at the time the action is
> > taken, not when the objection is made. Under the present
> > circumstances, it would not be excessively difficult to locate G.'s
> > categorical objection when someone attempted to take such an action.
***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.
*** 3688 judgement from G.
[phew! I tried a few times on this one and lost steam - just gotta
get it off my plate].
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> 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."
I judge CFJ 3688 as follows:
I accept the Caller's arguments that e was Prime Minister at the time of
eir attempted action, and thus generally able to issue Cabinet Orders, as
there is game consensus and past practice that implies that e became PM
successfully.
But in attempting to assign CFJ 3672 to emself, e attempted to issue an
order of Certiorari for a open CFJ that already had a judge (Trigon)
assigned to it, so the focus of these arguments will be on what happens
in that situation.
Removing a judge from a case is a Regulated Action by R2125, as R591
enables its performance under certain conditions. This means removing a
judge from a case (as per R2125):
> CAN only be performed as described by the
> Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
> for performing the given action.
The invocation of Certiorari, as per R2451, is done by announcement as
follows:
> - Certiorari (Arbitor): The Prime Minister assigns emself as judge
> of a specified open case.
This does not "explicitly" remove the previous judge from the case. The
Caller (in subsequent arguments) has suggested that the Rules' grammar
and mechanisms around CFJs *imply* (without outright stating) that a
case can only have one judge. Therefore (paraphrasing the Caller) if a
new judge is assigned, the previous judge is removed by the "mechanism"
of the new judge being added + grammar that implies there can be only
one judge at a time.
I find that this does not meet the standard of "described by the Rules"
required for regulated actions. The "description" does not mention
removal, and "adding a new judge" is not "explicitly" specified as a
method of removing a previous judge. The "grammar" arguments for one
judge per case are implications - the rules are silent on whether the
previous judge is removed, so don't in any reasonable "description" of
removal. Previously (CFJ 3488) we have found that judges are not
removed from a case even if they cease to be players (they can still
deliver their judgements as a non-player), so requiring a more explicit
specification of judge removal is in keeping with precedent - if we
don't let deregistration and lack of eligibility implicitly remove a
judge, we wouldn't let adding a new judge implicitly remove a previous
judge.
So, whether or not D. Margaux became the judge via Certiorari, Trigon
remains a judge of CFJ 3672. So, either (1) the case has two judges
simultaneously, or (2) it is IMPOSSIBLE for a case to have two
judges simultaneously, and since Trigon was already the judge and not
removed, D. Margaux's attempt to assign it to emself failed.
How to distinguish? Simply, if the Certiorari clause (R2451) has
precedence over the "CFJ only has one judge" concept, then Certiorari
assignment worked (overriding the "one judge" concept) and the case has
two judges simultaneously. If "CFJ only has one judge" concept has
precedence, then the attempt to invoke Certiorari failed.
Unfortunately, the "only one judge" concept is not in a single rule, but
an inference gleaned by looking over the grammar and mechanisms of
several rules: R991, R591, and R911.
Also, it's important to note that individual instances of grammar should
NOT generally be sufficient to override explicit definitions: using "the"
instead of "a" might be a mistake or historical artifact. So it is only
if the full weight of implicit assumptions - both grammatical and
mechanistic, imply singularity, that we would find that CFJs CANNOT have
more than one judge at a time.
So looking across the rules in question:
R991 uses "its judge" which implies each CFJ has only one, but there are
no procedural difficulties there if a CFJ ends up with two judges.
R591 contains:
> When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign
> a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a
> timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not, the
> Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
> announcement
Here, "When a CFJ is ... assigned to a judge" is singular, which implies
that if a CFJ is assigned to 2 judges, then this condition isn't meant.
Which would mean that a CFJ assigned to two judges couldn't be assigned
a judgement. This would malfunction, and in particular prevent the CFJ
from being resolved, violating the last paragraph of R217 - so there's a
breakage in a high-level guarantee if the CFJ is found to have 2 judges.
R911 contains:
> - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is
> recused.
Here, "the current judge" is singular, and what happens for 2 judges
following a moot is unclear/broken.
Overall, these issues, especially the one in R591, mean that a 2-judge
assignment would be broken and not able to be judged - violating the
high-level R217, which has precedence over R2451.
Therefore, a case can have only one judge. Since Trigon was the judge,
and not removed, the attempt at Certiorari simply failed, and D. Margaux
did not judge the case. FALSE.
***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.
>
> //////
*** 3689 judgement from Murphy
I accept the caller's arguments and judge TRUE.
*** 3690 context:
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Timon Walshe-Grey<m...@timon.red>
> Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:19 PM
> Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [minority] Report
> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
>
>
> With which in mind:
>
> I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on G. for
> Tardiness in failing to publish a Herald monthly report in the month of
> November 2018. This has been reduced from the base value of 2 blots because e
> was aware and apologetic for eir mistake, it didn't have any significant game
> effect, and we got an interesting CFJ out of it.
>
> This violation is forgivable. G. CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge 1 blot
> from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words containing
> the words "indolence", "sin-ridden", "underhanded", "delinquent" and
> "buffalo", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for
> self-improvement.
>
> CFJ: "G. possesses at least one blot."
>
> If the above Imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice failed, then by
> definition this Finger Pointing must be Shenanigans, so I announce that fact.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Friday, November 30, 2018 11:26 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red>
> wrote:
>
> > I... can't see any specific reason why it wouldn't work, unless this is one
> > of those black-magic emergent properties of the rules that come up
> > occasionally. R2531 blocks punishment for a crime more than 14 days before
> > the Pointed Finger, but it doesn't explicitly say anything about crimes
> > after the Pointed Finger (although there is an implicit time limit because
> > the Referee has to resolve the Finger in a timely fashion, and if the
> > violation hasn't occurred by then then it would have to be Shenanigans).
> >
> > So I believe I have two legal options:
> >
> > - declare this Finger Pointing Shenanigans now, or
> > - wait until December (35 minutes) and then levy a fine on you.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> > On Friday, November 30, 2018 11:18 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > > I point my finger at G., for failure to publish the Herald's Monthly
> > > Report in November.
> > > Disclaimer: Referee, please note the time/date of the finger point. This
> > > is not an attempt to avoid consequences, nor mislead anyone on the
> > > effectiveness of the above action. I spaced out on getting the report
> > > done, and forgot until now that I need to go back and look at that batch
> > > of winning earlier, and won't be able to do it in time, so deserve
> > > appropriate consequences for that.
> > > At the same time, I'm damn curious about whether it works...
>
>
>
***3691 caller's email from Jacob Arduino:
I change my vote on Proposal 8136 to:
ENDORSE Gaelan if e has a valid ballot for said proposal
AGAINST otherwise
CFJ: "the last person to vote FOR a proposal" is the last person to submit
a ballot regarding that proposal which evaluates to FOR.
***3691 relevant proposal:
ID: 8136
Title: I hate myself
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: V.J. Rada
Co-authors:
Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal
shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and
clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person to vote FOR it.
