BUS: @ tailor glitter

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

I award myself blue glitter for judging CFJ 3922

-- 
--
R. Lee

BUS: Re: DIS: [Ribbon] Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3927 Assigned to Telna

[ais523 via agora-business]

On Sun, 2021-09-05 at 06:21 +0100, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-09-05 at 15:16 +1000, Telna via agora-business wrote:
> > The document that this CFJ is about does not purport to be a report - in 
> > fact, it explicitly purports not to be one. This means that we cannot 
> > assume that a list of stones contained within is in fact a list of all 
> > stones. Can we get this information from elsewhere in the document? 
> > Well... we do not know. This CFJ is a hypothetical, and the document 
> > being posited does not exist in reality. Without being able to view its 
> > exact form, we cannot know whether the list of all stones would purport 
> > to be a list of all stones. This results in the case being ultimately 
> > undecidable. Accordingly, I see no other choice but to DISMISS.
> 
> I was interested primarily in the case where it clearly was a list of
> all stones, but you answered that already. So I'm satisfied with this
> judgement, as it answered my question, and I apologise for
> unintentionally leaving that important point unclear.
> 
> I award Telna a Blue Ribbon.

TTttPF.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3927 Assigned to Telna (@Promotor)

[Telna via agora-business]

On 2021-09-05 15:16, Telna via agora-business wrote:
The basis for this CFJ is that asset self-ratification is currently 
bugged. While all other cases of self-ratification in the ruleset apply 
to "a public document that purports to be a report", asset 
self-ratification instead simply applies to "a report". This 
(unintentional) difference leads to a number of problems.


The easiest solution to the issues raised is to just fix asset 
self-ratification to work as all other self-ratification does. As such, 
I create and pay 1 Pendant to pend the following proposal:


Title: Asset Self-Ratification Fix
Author: Telna
Coauthors: ais523, Alexis
Adoption Index: 3.0
{
In Rule 2166 "Assets", replace the text "This portion of that entity's 
report is self-ratifying." with the following:


A public document purporting to be this portion of that entity's report 
is self-ratifying.

}

BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3927 Assigned to Telna

[Telna via agora-business]

On 2021-09-04 19:52, Telna via agora-official wrote:

The below CFJ is 3927. I assign it to Telna.

=

If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of stones 
that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then despite 
the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying.


Called by ais523: Sat 04 Sep 2021 05:42:42

=

On 2021-09-04 15:42, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self-
ratifying stone report):

All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No escape choices
are necessary.


CFJ: If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of
stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then
despite the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying.

Evidence: The above-quoted message.

Arguments: Most triggers for self-ratification in the rules require the
thing that self-ratifies to purport to be something, e.g. a Ribbons
report self-ratifies only if it's purporting to be a Ribbons report.
However, assets are a separate case; rule 2166 states that the
recordkeepor's report lists all instances of the class of assets and
their owners, and that portion of the report is self-ratifying. In
other words, the trigger is whether something *is* an asset report, not
whether it *purports to be* one.

The Stonemason's only weekly duty, as far as I can tell, is to be "the
recordkeepor of stones". As such, I think any listing, published by the
Stonemason, of what stones exist and who their owners are is a
Stonemason weekly report by definition, even if it claims not to be.
(Specifically, I think the hypothetical collection notice posited by
the CFJ would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in rule 2143 to
perform the officekeepor's weekly duties.)

As a side note: the actual message did not list what stones existed,
which I think is sufficient to make it not count as a weekly report; I
can't find anything in the rules that requires all the defined stones
to exist (they're indestructible but nothing forces them to have been
created in the first place). So this means, sadly, that I have to put a
hypothetical in the statement to prevent the CFJ ending up with an
obvious result on a technicality.



The basis for this CFJ is that asset self-ratification is currently 
bugged. While all other cases of self-ratification in the ruleset apply 
to "a public document that purports to be a report", asset 
self-ratification instead simply applies to "a report". This 
(unintentional) difference leads to a number of problems. The first is 
that it maybe be possible for something to unintentionally be an asset 
report, and thus self-ratify by mistake. In this hypothetical instance, 
the CFJ posits that a list of all stones would self-ratify despite the 
document claiming to not be a self-ratifying report.


The core problem is therefore: Is it possible for a report to not 
purport to be a report?


While the Rules place a few constraints on what a report (or part of a 
report) can be, they infamously refuse to define what exactly a report 
is. This leaves the matter to be resolved by precedent and game custom. 
However, the precedent on this question is mixed and unclear:
 - In CFJ 3645, the caller argues that "A report occurs when an officer 
publishes certain information, whether they want it to or not." and "I'm 
inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective". These arguments 
were then accepted by the judge without further analysis.
 - In CFJ 3792, the judge (while discussing how self-ratification is 
intended to work) claims that "The important thing here is that, to 
publish a report, the Rules don't require the Officer to display intent, 
e.g. to say "I hereby publish the following report" as they would if 
they were publishing a report "by announcement".  Rather, the rules 
require that the person simply "publish all the information"." The judge 
then goes on to argue that an explicit purportation is still required, 
but relies upon the intended form of self-ratification when making this 
claim.
 - In CFJ 3798, the judge discusses a strict list of requirements in 
order for a part of a report to qualify as such. This includes "Each 
part must purport to contain the full set of information that is 
rules-defined as being that portion of the report". Note that this is 
not the same thing as a document purporting to be a report, but instead 
that the document must purport to contain the information that a part of 
a report would necessarily include.


How do we interpret these precedents? Nothing seems to dispute that a 
disclaimer is not enough to prevent a public document from being a 
report if that document contains all the information required to be in 
that report. So, what information is required to be in the Stonemason's 
report? Rule 2166 "Assets" has the answer.
"The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the 

BUS: contract with cuddlybananaq

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

I create the below contract

"R. Lee is a party, Cuddlybanana may become a party at any time.

Any party CAN act on behalf of another party to transfer 2 justice cards to
emselves if they combine 4 justice cards into 10 pendants and transfer 5
pendants to the other party in the same message.

Any party can destroy this contract by announcement after the above has
been completed"

-- 
--
R. Lee

BUS: CFJ 3922 REJUDGED false

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

D. Wet attempted to submit a proposal with the words "I propose to create a
new rule". Previously, I found that this unambiguously created a
proposal with the text following the word 'to'. A majority of Agorans voted
to send the case back to me.

A proposal must mandatorily 'specify' its text (R 2350). An ambiguous text
is not specific, so by definition it is not specified. About half of
Agorans take one interpretation of this text while half take the other
interpretation, which is very powerful evidence that the text is deeply
ambiguous. Because this is so, D. Wet failed to create a proposal.

It must be said that even if half of agorans took a certain interpretation,
I would still reject that interpretation if it was completely unreasonable.
There have been and will be occasions where many agorans fail to act
reasonably, and judges are not hostage to public opinion. Nonetheless, I
think it is perfectly reasonable to be confused about where, if anywhere,
the proposal's actual text begins here.

I judge CFJ 3922 FALSE.


--
R. Lee

Re: BUS: Skipping the official trade system because effort (@Treasuror)

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 1:24 PM Telna via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I transfer 85 coins to R. Lee.
>

I transfer a pendant to telna
-- 
--
R. Lee

BUS: Skipping the official trade system because effort (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-business]

I transfer 85 coins to R. Lee.

Re: BUS: Self-Grant (@Treasuror)

[ais523 via agora-business]

On Sun, 2021-09-05 at 13:12 +1000, Telna via agora-business wrote:
> Pursuant to my Focus, I grant myself a Justice Card.

With my Focus, I grant myself a Legislative Card.

-- 
ais523

BUS: Self-Grant (@Treasuror)

[Telna via agora-business]

Pursuant to my Focus, I grant myself a Justice Card.

BUS: Re: [proposal] more warranty work

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

Actually, acting too quickly, apologies to H. Promotor Aspen.  Thought
there was a text issue, but not really.

I hereby submit a proposal with the same specifications as the proposal I
created below.

On 9/4/2021 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> I withdraw this proposal.  -G.
> 
> 
> On 9/4/2021 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> [I'll pay to pend this one after any comments come in].
>>
>>
>> I submit the following proposal, "another device defect", AI-1:
>>
>> ---
>> Amend Rule 2655 by replacing:
>>   responsible for building and maintaining the Device.
>> with:
>>   responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device.
>>
>> and by deleting:
>>   This intent announcement counts as the Mad
>>   Engineers's weekly report.
>>
>> [with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly
>> switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to
>> get the weekly report reward.  The intent is still part of "weekly duties"
>> but not the report.]
>> ---
>>

BUS: Re: [proposal] more warranty work

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I withdraw this proposal.  -G.


On 9/4/2021 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> [I'll pay to pend this one after any comments come in].
> 
> 
> I submit the following proposal, "another device defect", AI-1:
> 
> ---
> Amend Rule 2655 by replacing:
>   responsible for building and maintaining the Device.
> with:
>   responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device.
> 
> and by deleting:
>   This intent announcement counts as the Mad
>   Engineers's weekly report.
> 
> [with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly
> switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to
> get the weekly report reward.  The intent is still part of "weekly duties"
> but not the report.]
> ---
> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 9/4/21 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 12:29 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> I think it's certainly not untracked. G. is responsible for tracking it
>> in either case due to R2603:
>>
>> 
>> Rule 2603/0 (Power=1)
>> Switch Responsiblity
>>
>>   For each type of switch which would otherwise lack an officer to
>>   track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed
>>   office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for
>>   tracking that switch.
>>
>> 
> How is that officer determined I don't see any mechanism for doing so?
> Maybe just missing it?
>
> Anyway, this makes the issue immediately substantive, because if I just
> posted that as part of that other officer's report, I get an additional
> report reward?
>
> Let's try something.
>
> 
> I deputize for the Tracker of the Device to publish the following Tracker
> of the Device weekly report: the Device is off.
> 
>
> [This may fail if the duty was already performed this week or for several
> other reasons.  Regardless, it doesn't make me the holder of the office
> because that's only for elected offices].
>

Rule 1006:

  When a proposal takes effect and creates a new office, if the
  proposal does not specify otherwise, the author of that proposal
  becomes the holder of the office.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

BUS: [proposal] more warranty work

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

[I'll pay to pend this one after any comments come in].


I submit the following proposal, "another device defect", AI-1:

---
Amend Rule 2655 by replacing:
  responsible for building and maintaining the Device.
with:
  responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device.

and by deleting:
  This intent announcement counts as the Mad
  Engineers's weekly report.

[with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly
switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to
get the weekly report reward.  The intent is still part of "weekly duties"
but not the report.]
---

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

On 9/4/2021 12:29 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> I think it's certainly not untracked. G. is responsible for tracking it
> in either case due to R2603:
> 
> 
> Rule 2603/0 (Power=1)
> Switch Responsiblity
> 
>   For each type of switch which would otherwise lack an officer to
>   track it, and is not defined as untracked, there exists an imposed
>   office named “Tracker of [switch name]” that is responsible for
>   tracking that switch.
> 
> 

How is that officer determined I don't see any mechanism for doing so?
Maybe just missing it?

Anyway, this makes the issue immediately substantive, because if I just
posted that as part of that other officer's report, I get an additional
report reward?

Let's try something.


I deputize for the Tracker of the Device to publish the following Tracker
of the Device weekly report: the Device is off.


[This may fail if the duty was already performed this week or for several
other reasons.  Regardless, it doesn't make me the holder of the office
because that's only for elected offices].

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty

[Trigon via agora-business]

El 04/09/21 a las 18:59, ais523 via agora-business escribió:

On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:

On 9/4/2021 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

the "device on" section:

  The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together
  with the following week, is a Holiday.


I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the device to "on".


Looks like the only effect this has at the moment is in R1769:

   If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs during
   a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.


This doesn't seem like a particularly useful nor interesting effect
right now. So I object.



I support, because I love the idea of a toggleable holiday

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] I need a holiday + maybe a final reporting duty

[ais523 via agora-business]

On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 11:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > the "device on" section:
> > >  The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device, together
> > >  with the following week, is a Holiday.
> 
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the device to "on".

Looks like the only effect this has at the moment is in R1769:
>   If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs during
>   a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.

This doesn't seem like a particularly useful nor interesting effect
right now. So I object.

-- 
ais523

Re: BUS: (@treasuror) focusing

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 9/4/21 14:30, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> I grant myself a legislative card (focus).  -G.
>

I grant myself a legislative card.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

BUS: (@treasuror) focusing

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I grant myself a legislative card (focus).  -G.

(@treasuror) Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I gain one Legislative Card for popularity (relevant proposals below).
-G.

On 8/30/2021 1:03 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> PROPOSAL 8599 (The Device (mark 2))
> AUTHOR: G.
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (8): Aspen, Cuddle Beam, G., Jason, R. Lee, Telna, Trigon, ais523
> AGAINST (0): 
> PRESENT (0): 
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 1.000
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> 
> PROPOSAL 8600 (fix win lockouts)
> AUTHOR: G.
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (8): Aspen, Cuddle Beam, G., Jason, R. Lee, Telna, Trigon, ais523
> AGAINST (0): 
> PRESENT (0): 
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=2.0)
> POPULARITY: 1.000
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> Aspen: Endorsement of Jason
> ais523: Endorsement of G.
> ]

Re: BUS: [Survivor] Finale Script

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 9/4/21 08:31, Telna via agora-business wrote:
> Let's get something rolling here - this text would have each team vote 
> for a winner immediately. Feel free to pass it or not, but if you 
> disagree then I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to suggest an alternative so that 
> we can make something happen before the tournament expires.
>
> The below text is a Finale Script. I support it.
>
> =
> R. Lee becomes a Contestant and Ghost.
> ---
> Replace the text of section "#1 Winning" with the following:
> A Contestant wins when e is the only Survivor on eir team. When e 
> achieves this, e has Outlasted the other Contestants on eir team.
> ---
> Replace the text of section "#Finale" with the following:
> During the Finale, all Contestants CAN, by sending a message to the 
> Host, vote on a specified Survivor on eir team. When all Contestants 
> have voted, or 7 days after the Finale began, the Host CAN announce the 
> Survivor on each team who received the most votes, and Expel all other 
> Survivors.
> ---
> All Ghosts rejoin the teams they were originally assigned to, but remain 
> Ghosts. The Finale begins.
> =


I object because we have to go through without 3 objections method to
actually modify the regulation.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] September Collection Notice

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

On 9/3/2021 10:42 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>> I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self-
>> ratifying stone report):
>>
>> All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No escape choices
>> are necessary.
> 
> CFJ: If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of
> stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then
> despite the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying.
> 
> Evidence: The above-quoted message.
> 
> Arguments: Most triggers for self-ratification in the rules require the
> thing that self-ratifies to purport to be something, e.g. a Ribbons
> report self-ratifies only if it's purporting to be a Ribbons report.
> However, assets are a separate case; rule 2166 states that the
> recordkeepor's report lists all instances of the class of assets and
> their owners, and that portion of the report is self-ratifying. In
> other words, the trigger is whether something *is* an asset report, not
> whether it *purports to be* one.

The duty of reporting, as defined in R2143, is to publish "information".

CFJ 3798 found that for a document to be informative, it must be
"reasonably well-labelled" so we know what information it is, otherwise it
isn't actually information.  I would argue that a disclaimer effectively
removes the label, and a disclaimed document therefore isn't information
(or at least, not the required information), so doesn't fulfill any duty.

[Aside:  CFJ 3792 found that author's intent was required to publish a
report, but that depended on the "purport" language, so it's worth asking
in a legislative setting why that's missing from the Assets rule.]

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3798
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3792

[Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

Having received no objections, I flip the below proposal to pending.


On 8/30/2021 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On 8/30/2021 6:28 PM, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote:
>> The parts about self-destruction seem broken to me.  They switch 
>> ambiguously between whether it shall happen by proposal or with intent, 
>> neither clearly requiring either nor enabling the latter.
> 
> I submit a Proposal, "Covered under warranty", Coauthor:  Ørjan, AI-1,
> with this text:
> 
> -
> 
> Amend Rule 2655 (The Mad Engineer) by replacing:
>   skip directly to proposal submission.
> with:
>   skip directly to announcing intent, below.
> 
> and by replacing:
>   with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to amend the rule "The Device"
>   as indicated,
> with:
>   with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to amend the rule "The Device"
>   as indicated (or, if 007 has been spotted, cause this rule to repeal
>   both that rule and this one),
> 
> -
> 
> 
> As the rules above are still under warranty, I intend to flip the
> above-created proposal to pending, without objection.
> 

Re: BUS: [Survivor] Finale Script

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

On 9/4/2021 5:31 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote:
> Let's get something rolling here - this text would have each team vote 
> for a winner immediately. Feel free to pass it or not, but if you 
> disagree then I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to suggest an alternative so that 
> we can make something happen before the tournament expires.
> 
> The below text is a Finale Script. I support it.
> 
> =
> R. Lee becomes a Contestant and Ghost.
> ---
> Replace the text of section "#1 Winning" with the following:
> A Contestant wins when e is the only Survivor on eir team. When e 
> achieves this, e has Outlasted the other Contestants on eir team.
> ---
> Replace the text of section "#Finale" with the following:
> During the Finale, all Contestants CAN, by sending a message to the 
> Host, vote on a specified Survivor on eir team. When all Contestants 
> have voted, or 7 days after the Finale began, the Host CAN announce the 
> Survivor on each team who received the most votes, and Expel all other 
> Survivors.
> ---
> All Ghosts rejoin the teams they were originally assigned to, but remain 
> Ghosts. The Finale begins.
> =
> 

I object.  I think all current survivors should have a chance for a
competition round as a group before the next elimination vote (whatever
form that vote takes).

-G.

BUS: [Survivor] Finale Script

[Telna via agora-business]

Let's get something rolling here - this text would have each team vote 
for a winner immediately. Feel free to pass it or not, but if you 
disagree then I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE you to suggest an alternative so that 
we can make something happen before the tournament expires.


The below text is a Finale Script. I support it.

=
R. Lee becomes a Contestant and Ghost.
---
Replace the text of section "#1 Winning" with the following:
A Contestant wins when e is the only Survivor on eir team. When e 
achieves this, e has Outlasted the other Contestants on eir team.

---
Replace the text of section "#Finale" with the following:
During the Finale, all Contestants CAN, by sending a message to the 
Host, vote on a specified Survivor on eir team. When all Contestants 
have voted, or 7 days after the Finale began, the Host CAN announce the 
Survivor on each team who received the most votes, and Expel all other 
Survivors.

---
All Ghosts rejoin the teams they were originally assigned to, but remain 
Ghosts. The Finale begins.

=