Re: [attn Herald] Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3858
I issue a Notice of Honor +1 R. Lee for Being a Good Sport when faced with a judgment going the wrong way and eir fun scam attempt that encouraged a flurry of gameplay -1 grok for neglecting judicial duties and dragging out the scam's denouement On Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 9:10 PM Ed Strange via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I give the same notice of honour as G below > > On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 12:00 pm Kerim Aydin via agora-business, < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > Notice of Honour > > +1 grok (for delivering a heavy judgement load under pressure) > > -1 G. (for putting you in the situation with rushed Arbitoring) > > > > > > > > >
Re: BUS: New contract
On 6/27/20 9:55 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote: > I consent > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:51 PM nch via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 6/23/20 12:02 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: >>> On 6/22/20 11:59 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote: I create the below new contract (which I join) "Only nch and R. Lee can join this, they can do so by announcement. Nch and R. Lee can do any action on each other's behalf except join or consent to contracts or their modification" -- From R. Lee >>> I join this contract. >>> >>> -- >>> nch >>> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager >>> >>> >> I intend to destroy this contract with R. Lee's consent. >> >> -- >> nch >> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager >> >> >> > -- > From R. Lee With the consent of both parties, I destroy this contract. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: BUS: New contract
I consent On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 12:51 PM nch via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/23/20 12:02 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > On 6/22/20 11:59 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote: > >> I create the below new contract (which I join) > >> > >> "Only nch and R. Lee can join this, they can do so by announcement. > >> > >> Nch and R. Lee can do any action on each other's behalf except join or > >> consent to contracts or their modification" > >> > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > > I join this contract. > > > > -- > > nch > > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > > > > I intend to destroy this contract with R. Lee's consent. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: BUS: New contract
On 6/23/20 12:02 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > On 6/22/20 11:59 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote: >> I create the below new contract (which I join) >> >> "Only nch and R. Lee can join this, they can do so by announcement. >> >> Nch and R. Lee can do any action on each other's behalf except join or >> consent to contracts or their modification" >> >> -- >> From R. Lee > I join this contract. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > I intend to destroy this contract with R. Lee's consent. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
BUS: [Treasuror Attn] Voting Point Transfer
I transfer 2 extra votes to nch (I appear to have 5 and we are sharing things half and half) -- >From R. Lee
Re: BUS: Attn Nch, Notary
On 6/27/20 9:45 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote: > I wish to amend my contract with nch "Co-dependence" by removing the last > sentence (the one about us being able to do any action for each other) > > -- > From R. Lee I consent.
BUS: Attn Nch, Notary
I wish to amend my contract with nch "Co-dependence" by removing the last sentence (the one about us being able to do any action for each other) -- >From R. Lee
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8458
Me too On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 12:02 pm nch via agora-business, < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/22/20 10:13 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > On 6/22/20 9:39 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > >> ID Author(s)AITitle > >> > --- > >> 8458e Aris 1.0 Welcome Package Patch > > I pay an extra vote to buy strength on proposal 8458 3 times. I vote > > AGAINST proposal 8458. > > > > -- > > nch > > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > > > > I withdraw my vote on this proposal. I vote FOR. I pledge not to change > my vote on proposal 8458. > >
Re: [attn Herald] Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3858
I give the same notice of honour as G below On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 12:00 pm Kerim Aydin via agora-business, < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Notice of Honour > +1 grok (for delivering a heavy judgement load under pressure) > -1 G. (for putting you in the situation with rushed Arbitoring) > > > >
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8458
On 6/22/20 10:13 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > On 6/22/20 9:39 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: >> ID Author(s)AITitle >> --- >> 8458e Aris 1.0 Welcome Package Patch > I pay an extra vote to buy strength on proposal 8458 3 times. I vote > AGAINST proposal 8458. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > I withdraw my vote on this proposal. I vote FOR. I pledge not to change my vote on proposal 8458.
[attn Herald] Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3858
Notice of Honour +1 grok (for delivering a heavy judgement load under pressure) -1 G. (for putting you in the situation with rushed Arbitoring)
Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 6/22/20 10:51 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause the office of Prime Minister to > become vacant. > The scam is over, so there is no use in controlling PM anymore. I object to the above intent. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3858
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > > The below is CFJ 3858. I assign it to grok. > > CFJ Statement: > An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on objections. > > > Called by: > Jason on 23 Jun 2020 21:58:23 -0400 > (Barred: nch) > > > Caller's Evidence: > > Rule 2124/26 [Excerpt]: > > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > > Dictionary definition of "define": > > [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depend > > > Caller's Arguments: > > What it means for an action to "depend on objections" is not defined in > the rules. This means that it has its common language meaning. The word > at issue is "depend". Merriam-Webster [0] defines "depend" as an > intransitive verb meaning: > > 1. to be determined, based, or contingent > > 2. to be pending or undecided > > 3. a. to place reliance or trust > >b. to be dependent especially for financial support > > 4. to hang down > > I believe definition 1 here makes the most sense in context. I see two > ways to interpret an action "depending on objections" - it either must > require objects to be performable, or it must be affected by objections. > The former makes no sense - no dependent action requires objections in > order to be actionable, which would mean the clause has no effect. This > leaves the second reading - the action "depends on objections" if > objections affect whether it can be performed. > > An action to be performed with 7 days notice is affected by the presence > or absence of objections. In particular, it is affected by the presence > of an objection from the Speaker, who can veto an action for 48 hours by > objecting. This is consistent with a common language reading - the > effectiveness of an action to be performed with 7 days action is, in > part, "determined" by, "based" on, or "contingent" upon, the presence or > absence of an objection. Because of this, I argue that an action to be > performed with 7 days notice "depends on objections" and argue for TRUE. > > I find CFJ 3858 TRUE I had a substantially larger, textual decision written, but as I continue to review the case I find myself more compelled by the common definition gratuitous arguments written even if they don't necessarily match the noun forms used in the text. Ultimately, I take the common definitions as a logical test. R2124 Paragraph 7 asks a question: "Does this action depend on objections?" Paragraph 8 tells us "We must check for objections because the Speaker's objection would mean Agora is Not Satisfied." Logically, this means there is a dependency. Even though the Speaker can only ever be one person, and the Speaker can only ever submit one objection, and any other objection would be untracked, INEFFECTIVE, and IRRELEVANT, we only need one EFFECTIVE objection for the determination of objections to be a prior question to Agoran Satisfaction. Therefore, I find the statement TRUE. (note: A key implication of this decision is that in this interpretation, every Dependent Action depends on objections.)
BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 492
On 6/27/20 9:48 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-official wrote: > > FORBES FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-TWO > or > TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT > Thanks for all your hard work on the DracoLotto. CoE: my rewards from DracoLotto don't seem to be reflected in the total. I believe I should have 3 blot-be-gones and 1 VP. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
This CFJ https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3638
Found that the ordinary meaning of valid was "legally binding in accirdance
with the law". Reasonable people could not disagree that that is a synonym
for EFFECTIVE.
On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:07 am Ed Strange,
wrote:
> Tpf
>
> On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:06 am Ed Strange,
> wrote:
>
>> I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players
>> may not disagree about the operation of the current wording.
>>
>> On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:02 am Jason Cobb via agora-business, <
>> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I submit the following proposal and certify it as a patch:
>>>
>>> Title: Decision resolution patch
>>>
>>> Author: Jason
>>>
>>> Coauthors: nch, G.
>>>
>>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 208 by replacing the text "To be valid, this announcement
>>> must satisfy the following conditions" with the text "To be EFFECTIVE,
>>> such an attempt must satisfy the following conditions".
>>>
>>>
>>> [This resolves a potential bug that *may* permit the vote collector of a
>>> decision to resolve it without adhering to the conditions in the
>>> numbered list of Rule 208 based on the precise wording of how the
>>> conditions are enforced. The argument that they don't work is that the
>>> sentence doesn't sufficiently override R208's earlier statement that
>>> "The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by
>>> announcement, indicating the outcome.", because it describes the
>>> announcement, rather than the attempt itself.
>>>
>>> Even if that interpretation is wrong, there is enough of an ambiguity
>>> that it should be resolved. The new wording makes this clearer by
>>> describing the /attempt/ as INEFFECTIVE (clearly overriding the earlier
>>> CAN) rather than the "announcement".]
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Justification for certification as a patch:
>>>
>>> An ambiguity exists because "reasonable players" can "disagree about the
>>> operation" of Rule 208. Even if you think I am not a reasonable player,
>>> nch and G. were at least willing to entertain my arguments and did not
>>> dismiss me as entirely insane. The proposal's "sole function" is to
>>> resolve this ambiguity and fix the (potential) bug.
>>>
>>> This ambiguity relates to my office as Assessor because it is the
>>> Assessor's entire function to collect votes on and resolve Agoran
>>> decisions. This ambiguity affects what requirements and abilities are
>>> placed on vote collectors, so it relates to the office of Assessor.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>>
Re: BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
Tpf
On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:06 am Ed Strange,
wrote:
> I point a finger at jason for uncertain certification. Reasonable players
> may not disagree about the operation of the current wording.
>
> On Sun., 28 Jun. 2020, 11:02 am Jason Cobb via agora-business, <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal and certify it as a patch:
>>
>> Title: Decision resolution patch
>>
>> Author: Jason
>>
>> Coauthors: nch, G.
>>
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 208 by replacing the text "To be valid, this announcement
>> must satisfy the following conditions" with the text "To be EFFECTIVE,
>> such an attempt must satisfy the following conditions".
>>
>>
>> [This resolves a potential bug that *may* permit the vote collector of a
>> decision to resolve it without adhering to the conditions in the
>> numbered list of Rule 208 based on the precise wording of how the
>> conditions are enforced. The argument that they don't work is that the
>> sentence doesn't sufficiently override R208's earlier statement that
>> "The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by
>> announcement, indicating the outcome.", because it describes the
>> announcement, rather than the attempt itself.
>>
>> Even if that interpretation is wrong, there is enough of an ambiguity
>> that it should be resolved. The new wording makes this clearer by
>> describing the /attempt/ as INEFFECTIVE (clearly overriding the earlier
>> CAN) rather than the "announcement".]
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>> Justification for certification as a patch:
>>
>> An ambiguity exists because "reasonable players" can "disagree about the
>> operation" of Rule 208. Even if you think I am not a reasonable player,
>> nch and G. were at least willing to entertain my arguments and did not
>> dismiss me as entirely insane. The proposal's "sole function" is to
>> resolve this ambiguity and fix the (potential) bug.
>>
>> This ambiguity relates to my office as Assessor because it is the
>> Assessor's entire function to collect votes on and resolve Agoran
>> decisions. This ambiguity affects what requirements and abilities are
>> placed on vote collectors, so it relates to the office of Assessor.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>>
>>
BUS: [Proposal] Resolving Ambiguous Decisions
I submit the following proposal and certify it as a patch:
Title: Decision resolution patch
Author: Jason
Coauthors: nch, G.
Adoption index: 3.0
{
Amend Rule 208 by replacing the text "To be valid, this announcement
must satisfy the following conditions" with the text "To be EFFECTIVE,
such an attempt must satisfy the following conditions".
[This resolves a potential bug that *may* permit the vote collector of a
decision to resolve it without adhering to the conditions in the
numbered list of Rule 208 based on the precise wording of how the
conditions are enforced. The argument that they don't work is that the
sentence doesn't sufficiently override R208's earlier statement that
"The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by
announcement, indicating the outcome.", because it describes the
announcement, rather than the attempt itself.
Even if that interpretation is wrong, there is enough of an ambiguity
that it should be resolved. The new wording makes this clearer by
describing the /attempt/ as INEFFECTIVE (clearly overriding the earlier
CAN) rather than the "announcement".]
}
Justification for certification as a patch:
An ambiguity exists because "reasonable players" can "disagree about the
operation" of Rule 208. Even if you think I am not a reasonable player,
nch and G. were at least willing to entertain my arguments and did not
dismiss me as entirely insane. The proposal's "sole function" is to
resolve this ambiguity and fix the (potential) bug.
This ambiguity relates to my office as Assessor because it is the
Assessor's entire function to collect votes on and resolve Agoran
decisions. This ambiguity affects what requirements and abilities are
placed on vote collectors, so it relates to the office of Assessor.
--
Jason Cobb
[Glitter] Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 11:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 >> >> === CFJ 3851 === >> >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in >> evidence. >> >> == >> >> Caller:G. >> Barred:R. Lee >> >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> == >> >> History: >> >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] >> >> == > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. > I award myself Blue Glitter for this judgment. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: [attn Tailor] Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Tapecutter intent [Patent Title Award]
On the off change the below is too garbled, I award myself a violet ribbon (if I have not done so already). -G. On 6/27/2020 2:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 6/27/2020 2:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 6/27/2020 2:37 PM, Jason Cobb> via agora-business wrote:>> On 6/23/20 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via> agora-business wrote:>>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award G. the> Patent Title of>>> Tapecutter for Proposal 8407, "no stinking auction> definitions".>>> Seeing 3 support and no objections, I do so (award G.> the Patent Title>> of Tapecutter). Congratulations, G.!>>> > meep>> oh! and I award myself a violet ribbon. -G.
BUS: [RWO Intent] Truth in piracy
I intent, without objection, to ratify the following document:
{
This document is true as of 9:46 PM, June 27, 2020 UTC.
The contract known as "The Plunder Partnership" has the following text:
{
The Plunder Partnership
🏴☠️ WHO WE BE
The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to this
contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’ Locker
can become a Pirate by announcement. Any Pirate can make themselves cease
to be one by announcement.
🏴☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins to the Plundership
are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person in Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a
Pirate, and they immediately cease to be a Pirate if they already were one.
🏴☠️ DOUBLOONS
Doubloons are a destructible asset that can only belong to Pirates. When an
amount of coins is transferred to the Plundership, each Pirate gains an
amount of Doubloons equal to the amount transferred divided by the amount
of Pirates, rounded down. A Pirate with at least 1 Doubloon can transfer 1
coin to themselves from the Plundership. Doing so destroys 1 Doubloon in
their possession.
🏴☠️ PARLEY
Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes amendments
to this contract. If a Parley was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least
2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent to its contents, and it has not
yet been applied, then any Pirate can apply it by announcement, causing
this contract to be amended according to it.
}
}
This document may or may not be true due to confusion about the state of
the contract, but the above is what is listed in the latest Notary
report. The nature of the document's error is that it may contain
platonically inaccurate contract text. The reason for ratifying this
potentially-incorrect document is to eliminate uncertainty about the
contract's text. [I believe this satisfies any requirements under R2202
to prevent me committing the Crime of Endorsing Forgery.]
--
Jason Cobb
[attn Tailor] Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Tapecutter intent [Patent Title Award]
On 6/27/2020 2:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 6/27/2020 2:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:>> On 6/23/20 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:>>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award G. the Patent Title of>>> Tapecutter for Proposal 8407, "no stinking auction definitions".>>> Seeing 3 support and no objections, I do so (award G. the Patent Title>> of Tapecutter). Congratulations, G.!>>> > meep> oh! and I award myself a violet ribbon. -G.
Re: BUS: [Rulekeepor] Tapecutter intent [Patent Title Award]
On 6/23/20 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award G. the Patent Title of > Tapecutter for Proposal 8407, "no stinking auction definitions". > Seeing 3 support and no objections, I do so (award G. the Patent Title of Tapecutter). Congratulations, G.! -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3848
On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:25 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
>
> The below CFJ is 3848. I assign it to grok.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3848
>
> === CFJ 3848 ===
>
> G. is a party to the Groucho Marx Club.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:G.
>
> Judge: grok
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by G.: 16 Jun 2020 22:51:31
> Assigned to grok: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On 6/16/2020 15:51 PM, G. wrote:
> > I consent to the following contract, the Groucho Marx Club:
> > {G. CANNOT become a party to the Groucho Marx Club}.
> >
> > I transfer 10 coins to the Groucho Marx Club.
>
>
> Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
> Consent
>
> A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
> at the time the action took place:
>
> 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
> action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
> 2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
> unambiguously indicates eir consent;
> 3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
> 4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
> take place or assented to it taking place.
>
>
> Rule 1742/22 (Power=2.5)
> Contracts
>
> Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention
> that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such
> an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified,
> including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all
> existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the
> consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the
> number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a
> person to become a party to a contract without eir consent.
>
> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
> between the contract and the rules.
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause
> the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
> unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
>
> The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted
> with reference only to information that is either publicly or
> generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the
> provisions are known as the annex.
>
> A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
> explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body:
>
> * Act on behalf of another party to the contract.
>
> * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract.
>
> * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a
> specified recipient.
>
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> I satisfied all of the requirements of R1742 for making a one-party
> agreement (obviously I agreed with myself about it). To asset that I
> CANNOT join is to assert that a contract can take precedence over R1742
> in this regard.
> Further, similar to the precedent of CFJ 7, the contract came into
> existence by my agreeing to it (i.e. the contract clauses had no force
> until immediately after I agreed). Once I agreed, they had force, but
> saying I CANNOT become a party doesn't matter if I'm already a party.
> (phrased that way,this might be a pretty trivial true, honestly).
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:
>
> Because this contract cannot have any parties, it cannot be a contract.
>
> ==
>
I find CFJ 3848 FALSE.
3848 proposes a question of relative action speed--when do things take
effect? At what moment of ratification is a person held to the
obligation of the ruleset? There are two key preceding cases to help
clarify this issue.
First, CFJ 7 [1]. This recently-judged case explores an early event of
the ratification of the ruleset, where it was disputed whether
contradictory rules could be ratified at the same time. The judgment
found yes, as neither rule had any effect until ratification, and
neither rule had preceding effect to decide to the contrary. Using
this judgment as precedent, there is a ruleset-level path for the
Grouch
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8458
I vote FOR. -Aris On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 10:22 AM ATMunn via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I vote FOR proposal 8458. > > On 6/22/2020 10:39 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it, > > and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote > collector > > is the Assessor, the quorum is 8, the voting method is AI-majority, and > the > > valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > conditional votes). > > > > ID Author(s)AITitle > > > --- > > 8458e Aris 1.0 Welcome Package Patch > > > > > > Legend: * : Democratic proposal. > > # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber. > > e : Economy ministry proposal. > > f : Efficiency ministry proposal. > > j : Justice ministry proposal. > > l : Legislation ministry proposal. > > p : Participation ministry proposal. > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where > > the information shown below differs from the information shown above, > > the information shown above shall control. > > > > // > > ID: 8458 > > Title: Welcome Package Patch > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > Amend Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by appending to the first paragraph: > > > >A player CANNOT receive a Welcome Package via this method if e was > >deregistered on account of having excessive blots. > > > > // > > > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) >
