COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Date of this report: 10 Dec 2018
Date of last report: 03 Dec 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, judged DISMISS by G. 3
December 2018, self-filed motion to reconsider by G. 3 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
--------------------------------------------
[None since date of last report]
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
--------------------------
************************************************************
************************* CFJ 3690 *************************
************************************************************
*** 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...
>
>
>
************************************************************
************************* CFJ 3691 *************************
************************************************************
***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.
***3691 initial judgement rendered by G.:
I judge CFJ 3691 as follows:
The rules do not describe voting on [or FOR] proposals at all. The
rules describe voting on "decisions to adopt proposals". To see that
this is a consequential variation (in terms of technicalities), note
that a proposal can be part of more than one decision to adopt it (e.g.,
if it fails quorum).
As part of our long-standing shorthand, people casting votes by
announcement do so, generally, by stating that they are voting on the
proposals, not on the decisions to adopt proposals. This is very useful
shorthand and valid, as there is no ambiguity that their votes refer to
Decisions. However, if someone wrote actual formal rules text that
described what happened when someone "voted FOR proposals", it would
quickly be pointed out that "voting FOR proposals" is not a regulated,
described action.
So the answer to this question is: it depends. If "the last person to
vote FOR a proposal" was used colloquially (say within another player's
conditional vote), this CFJ would be TRUE. If that text was used within
a Rule, it would be FALSE, as the rules don't map "voting FOR a
proposal" to "submitting a valid ballot of FOR on the decision to adopt
the proposal", so that would be referring to some other (perhaps
non-existent, unregulated, or impossible-to-perform) process.
If the text is contained within a proposal (midway between the formality
of rules and colloquial shorthand for actions), I think it would err on
the side of rules text (i.e. it would refer to a non-existent process),
due to the technical and precise level on which proposals function.
Since the answer to the CFJ is therefore "it depends on context", I
judge DISMISS (insufficient information).
***3691 belated caller's arguements from Gaelan:
Not that it matters, but I’m not convinced about this ruling.
Proposal/decision issue aside, in this situation:
Gaelan votes “ENDORSE G”
Then G votes “FOR”
Who was the last one to vote FOR? The CFJ would argue that G does, because e
were the last one to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR. But another
reasonable interpretation would be that I do, because my conditional vote
isn’t evaluated until the end of the voting period, so until then I haven’t
really voted FOR. This isn’t really addressed in the judgement.
Gaelan
***3691 iritated response and self-filed motion to reconisder by judge G.:
This is why the Caller should always provide arguments, because otherwise
the judge doesn't know the point of contention (e.g. if it was a question
about specific ballots, and not the proposal-language, the arguments should
reflect that).
I self-file a motion to reconsider this judgement.
--
D. Margaux
