Re: BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

By the by, The second option is incorrect, relying on the subject
line as it does. Quoting 1880:

"Using the precedent given to us from CFJ 1784, the correct way to

interpret this public message would be to cover up the subject line and

read the body of the message by itself."

>From 1784 (which btw is exactly relevant)

"I find that this is not unclear or ambiguous; as noted in

CFJ 1631, the subject header of an email message is not part of the
message content."




On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:22 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> --Bar
> I bar Cuddlebeam
> --Statement--
> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> ---Evidence
> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>
> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
> despite accepting reconsideration.
> ---Argument
> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> judgement is valid.
>
> GLHF!
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:21 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
>> Or w/ proper line spacing
>>
>> --Bar
>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>> --Statement--
>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>> ---Evidence
>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
>> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
>> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>>
>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
>> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
>> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
>> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
>> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
>> despite accepting reconsideration.
>> ---Argument
>> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
>> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
>> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
>> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
>> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
>> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
>> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
>> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
>> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
>> judgement is valid.
>>
>> GLHF!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:20 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>>
>>> --Bar
>>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>>> --Statement--
>>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>>> ---Evidence
>>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what
>>> happened though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be
>>> too much of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>>>
>>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they
>>> refused to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS
>>> moved for reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration.
>>> On June 1, CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with
>>> identical text to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to
>>> judge it again, despite accepting reconsideration.
>>> ---Argument
>>> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
>>> judgement is invalid as 

BUS: Re: DIS: 1 person playing as many players?

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I pledge to like Quazie’s typos for the next week.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jun 13, 2017, at 8:15 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I will typo all I want, and you will all like it.
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 17:14 V.J Rada  wrote:
> And of course, egregious not agregious
> 
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> > Proto Proposal:
> > AI = 4
> > Title: When two become one
> > Rule: 'A short list of things that are too agregious to even attempt'
> > Doing any of the following is `Treating Agora Right Bad Forever` and are
> > bannable offenses:
> > - A single person attempting to register as two players
> >
> > If a person is found to have `Treaded Agora Right Bad Forever` the Registrar
> > CAN and SHALL  deregister em and permanently ban them from Agora, now and
> > forever.  A banned person CANNOT register.
> 
> _Forever_ is a very long time. Somewhere between 60-90 days seems
> better. Maybe even a bit longer, but not _forever_. I also think you
> mean "Treated Agora Right Bad Forever" not "Treaded Agora Right Bad
> Forever".
> 
> -Aris
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3526 assigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I retract all unassigned CFJs I have called

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:49 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they
> > exist.
>
> Oh. If there were three separate CFJs, I actually assigned the third
> one, I think (on the assumption that it would have the best
> formatting). So you'll need to retract the first one too in order to
> avoid ambiguity. (You can't retract a CFJ once it's been assigned, so
> no need to worry about accidentally destroying the one you want.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 16:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The following document is part of the Registrar's Weekly Report:
> 
> [beginning of document]
> 
>   Player   Contact Registered
>   --   --- --
>   DoggleBoon   cuddlebeam at googlemail.com    20 May 17
> 
> [end of document]

CoE: No it isn't.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> You didn't claim it was part of the Registrar's Report. You claimed you
> claimed it was part of the Registrar's report, but didn't claim it
> directly.

We've generally found that "I hereby state that I do X" has the same legal
effect as "I do X" plus some syntactic sugar.  I don't see a reason to differ
from that interpretation here.  But still, let's not split hairs:


The following document is part of the Registrar's Weekly Report:

[beginning of document]

  Player   Contact Registered
  --   --- --
  DoggleBoon   cuddlebeam at googlemail.com20 May 17

[end of document]

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3526 assigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they exist.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > --Bar
> > I bar Cuddlebeam
> > --Statement--
> > I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>
> I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across
> three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs).
> I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs
> you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here.
>
> This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o.
>
> > ---Evidence
> > This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> > though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> > of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
> >
> > On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> > to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved
> for
> > reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June
> 1,
> > CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> > to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it
> again,
> > despite accepting reconsideration.
> > ---Argument
> > There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> > judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The
> later
> > judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If
> the
> > statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> > reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is
> FALSE
> > because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> > CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> > Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> > it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> > judgement is valid.
> >
> > GLHF!
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Alex Smith]

On Tue, 2017-06-13 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Therefore,  I purport the following document is part of the Registrar's 
> Weekly Report:

ISIDTID. I don't believe you actually purported that the document was
part of the Registrar's weekly report (I don't think any sane player
would conclude that it was); you just incorrectly said you did.

Just in case it self-ratifies, though, CoE: That is not part of the
Registrar's Weekly Report.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

--Bar
I bar Cuddlebeam
--Statement--
I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
---Evidence
This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
despite accepting reconsideration.
---Argument
There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
judgement is valid.

GLHF!


On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:21 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> Or w/ proper line spacing
>
> --Bar
> I bar Cuddlebeam
> --Statement--
> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> ---Evidence
> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>
> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
> despite accepting reconsideration.
> ---Argument
> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> judgement is valid.
>
> GLHF!
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:20 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
>> --Bar
>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>> --Statement--
>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>> ---Evidence
>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
>> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
>> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>>
>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
>> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
>> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
>> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
>> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
>> despite accepting reconsideration.
>> ---Argument
>> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
>> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
>> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
>> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
>> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
>> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
>> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
>> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
>> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
>> judgement is valid.
>>
>> GLHF!
>>
>
>

Re: BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

Or w/ proper line spacing

--Bar
I bar Cuddlebeam
--Statement--
I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
---Evidence
This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
despite accepting reconsideration.
---Argument
There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
judgement is valid.

GLHF!


On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:20 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> --Bar
> I bar Cuddlebeam
> --Statement--
> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> ---Evidence
> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>
> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
> despite accepting reconsideration.
> ---Argument
> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> judgement is valid.
>
> GLHF!
>

BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

--Bar
I bar Cuddlebeam
--Statement--
I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
---Evidence
This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
despite accepting reconsideration.
---Argument
There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
judgement is valid.

GLHF!

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[V.J Rada]

"I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
reasons, let's see what happens though"

TTttPF

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:15 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
> reasons, let's see what happens though.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> > 1 - Current rules are certainly not handled by 10 year old CFJs... BUT2
>> - A non-player
>> > interacting with the game can't be compelled to act, but if they do act
>> they are wilfully
>> > agreeing and can be bound by the rules - meaning they can't just do
>> illegal things and
>> > have them succeed, as they are `playing the game` and thus must abide
>> by the rules.
>>
>> No, "acting" in general within Agora is not a wilful agreement on the
>> rules in and of
>> itself.  The actual players may "play the game" by adjusting records
>> according to the
>> rules to reflect a non-player's actions, but that doesn't mean the
>> non-player has agreed
>> to it.
>>
>> They still can't do IMPOSSIBLE things, though they could do ILLEGAL
>> things and not
>> be punished.
>>
>> Let's test it, shall we?  Here's one that's written for PERSONS (Rule
>> 2143):
>>A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
>>misleading while performing an official duty, or within a
>>document purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly
>>or monthly report.
>>
>> Therefore,  I purport the following document is part of the Registrar's
>> Weekly Report:
>>
>> [beginning of document]
>>
>>  Player   Contact
>>  Registered
>>  --   ---
>>  --
>>  DoggleBoon   cuddlebeam at googlemail.com20 May
>> 17
>>
>> [end of document]
>>
>> I'll leave it to Players to decide how to resolve my above statement,
>> while noting
>> that I DO NOT AGREE OR CONSENT TO ABIDE OR OTHERWISE BE BOUND BY THE
>> RULES.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> 1 - Current rules are certainly not handled by 10 year old CFJs... BUT2 - A 
> non-player
> interacting with the game can't be compelled to act, but if they do act they 
> are wilfully
> agreeing and can be bound by the rules - meaning they can't just do illegal 
> things and
> have them succeed, as they are `playing the game` and thus must abide by the 
> rules.

No, "acting" in general within Agora is not a wilful agreement on the rules in 
and of
itself.  The actual players may "play the game" by adjusting records according 
to the
rules to reflect a non-player's actions, but that doesn't mean the non-player 
has agreed
to it.

They still can't do IMPOSSIBLE things, though they could do ILLEGAL things and 
not
be punished.

Let's test it, shall we?  Here's one that's written for PERSONS (Rule 2143):
   A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
   misleading while performing an official duty, or within a
   document purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly
   or monthly report.

Therefore,  I purport the following document is part of the Registrar's Weekly 
Report:

[beginning of document]

 Player   Contact Registered
 --   --- --
 DoggleBoon   cuddlebeam at googlemail.com20 May 17

[end of document]

I'll leave it to Players to decide how to resolve my above statement, while 
noting
that I DO NOT AGREE OR CONSENT TO ABIDE OR OTHERWISE BE BOUND BY THE RULES.

BUS: I Point the Finger

[V.J Rada]

I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not
submit Judgement on CFJ 3509."
(
https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html
).
On that very same date, he did.
(
https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
).

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-06-12 at 22:41 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Grr. My fault. Will anyone mind if I ratify this away? Only way I can think
>> of fixing it, so I'm going to try. I intend, without objection, to ratify
>> the following document: {{The proposal that would otherwise have the ID
>> number 7958 instead has the ID number 7864.}}
>
> I object, not because I disagree with the principle, but because of the
> time paradox. Identify the proposal via some means other than number
> (e.g. via its title and submission date).

I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document: {{The
proposal entitled "Assets v7" by Aris has ID number 7864.}}

-Aris