Re: BUS: (@arbitor) finger-pointing

[Aspen via agora-business]

On Sun, Mar 6, 2022 at 4:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> I point a finger at ATMunn for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
> notary's report in the week of Feb 21.
>
> I point a finger at ATMunn for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
> notary's report in the week of Feb 28.
>
> (One weekly report in 6 weeks seems excessively behind-the-curve)
>
> I point a finger at Aspen for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
> notary's report in the week of Feb 28 (that's second missed report in a
> row I think - despite earlier conversation not personally pointing at
> single missing weeks).


The second missing week seems like a very fair policy!

FWIW, I plead that I have been very busy IRL and that there are more
proposals in the air than normal. Accordingly, I request a forgivable fine.

-Aspen

BUS: Re: (@arbitor) finger-pointing

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

On 3/6/2022 4:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> On 3/6/2022 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I point a finger at Aspen for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
>> notary's report in the week of Feb 28 (that's second missed report in a
>> row I think - despite earlier conversation not personally pointing at
>> single missing weeks).
> 
> Oops, obviously shenanigans there from the copy/paste.
> 

I point a finger at Aspen for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
promotor's report in the week of Feb 28.

I'd like to stay consistent about pointing a finger at the second missed
report in a row, but I ask the Arbitor for minimal and forgivable fine as
a draft was produced and the job is as-always challenging.

-G.

BUS: (@arbitor) finger-pointing

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I point a finger at ATMunn for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
notary's report in the week of Feb 21.

I point a finger at ATMunn for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
notary's report in the week of Feb 28.

(One weekly report in 6 weeks seems excessively behind-the-curve)

I point a finger at Aspen for violating Rule 2143 by failing to publish a
notary's report in the week of Feb 28 (that's second missed report in a
row I think - despite earlier conversation not personally pointing at
single missing weeks).

-G.

Re: BUS: (@Tailor) Green Ribbon for Arbitor

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 3/6/22 18:30, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to transfer one pendant from the Lost and
> Found Department to myself. (because you can do that apparently)


I object.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

BUS: (@Tailor) Green Ribbon for Arbitor

[secretsnail9 via agora-business]

I award myself a Green Ribbon. (I have been Arbitor continuously since 03
Feb 2022, and I don't think I've missed anything.)

I intend, without objection, to transfer one pendant from the Lost and
Found Department to myself. (because you can do that apparently)
--
secretsnail
Arbitor, Registrar

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] March Stone Auction

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

On 3/6/2022 2:24 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 3/6/22 16:18, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
>> El 06/03/2022 a las 21:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:
>>> On 3/6/22 16:06, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
 El 06/03/2022 a las 01:40, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:
> On 3/5/22 20:39, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>> Pursuant to Rule 2642, I initiate a stone auction with the following
>> lots: [Hot Potato Stone], [Alchemy Stone].
> I bid one coin on each lot.
>
 I bid 100 coins on each lot.

>>> I bid 200 coins on each lot.
>>>
>> I bid 300 coins on each lot.
>>
> 
> I bid 500 coins on each lot.
> 

I bid 999 coins on each lot.

-G.

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] March Stone Auction

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 3/6/22 16:18, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> El 06/03/2022 a las 21:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:
>> On 3/6/22 16:06, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
>>> El 06/03/2022 a las 01:40, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:
 On 3/5/22 20:39, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> Pursuant to Rule 2642, I initiate a stone auction with the following
> lots: [Hot Potato Stone], [Alchemy Stone].
 I bid one coin on each lot.

>>> I bid 100 coins on each lot.
>>>
>> I bid 200 coins on each lot.
>>
> I bid 300 coins on each lot.
>

I bid 500 coins on each lot.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] March Stone Auction

[Trigon via agora-business]

El 06/03/2022 a las 21:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:

On 3/6/22 16:06, Trigon via agora-business wrote:

El 06/03/2022 a las 01:40, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:

On 3/5/22 20:39, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

Pursuant to Rule 2642, I initiate a stone auction with the following
lots: [Hot Potato Stone], [Alchemy Stone].


I bid one coin on each lot.


I bid 100 coins on each lot.



I bid 200 coins on each lot.



I bid 300 coins on each lot.

--
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: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 3/6/22 15:22, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:
> secretsnailRO  CB  V   W AT   2


CoE: Secretsnail9's laudability should be 8.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] March Stone Auction

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 3/6/22 16:06, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> El 06/03/2022 a las 01:40, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:
>> On 3/5/22 20:39, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>>> Pursuant to Rule 2642, I initiate a stone auction with the following
>>> lots: [Hot Potato Stone], [Alchemy Stone].
>>
>> I bid one coin on each lot.
>>
> I bid 100 coins on each lot.
>

I bid 200 coins on each lot.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: OFF: Re: BUS: (@Tailor) Glitter that may or may not work (attn Treasuror)

[Ørjan Johansen via agora-business]

On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:


secretsnail wrote:


(Maybe doesn't work)
I award myself cyan glitter. I award myself transparent glitter. (Blue,
Gray, Transparent, Violet, then Cyan.)


I believe this Cyan glitter is for potentially temp-deputising for
Tailor to grant some old awards that may have remained open due to
specifying incorrect amounts.

If and only if secretsnail temporarily deputised for Tailor at least
once on or about Fri, 4 Mar 2022 00:44:21 -0600, I grant the following:
 * 6 BoC (492 coins) to secretsnail (Cyan glitter)
 * 8 BoC (656 coins) to secretsnail (Transparent glitter)


COE: As I interpret the word "other" in Rule 2438, Transparent itself does 
not count for Transparent.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] March Stone Auction

[Trigon via agora-business]

El 06/03/2022 a las 01:40, Jason Cobb via agora-business escribió:

On 3/5/22 20:39, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:

Pursuant to Rule 2642, I initiate a stone auction with the following
lots: [Hot Potato Stone], [Alchemy Stone].



I bid one coin on each lot.



I bid 100 coins on each lot.

--
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

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Treasuror] First Victory Auction of February 2022

[Trigon via agora-business]

El 05/03/2022 a las 21:34, ais523 via agora-business escribió:

On Sat, 2022-03-05 at 21:31 +, Trigon via agora-official wrote:

The Bidding Period of the First Victory Auction of February 2022 having
ended at 13:25 on 01 March 2022, it is now the Retrieval Period of that
auction. This is a resolution message.

[snip]

-- FOR THE THREE JUSTICE CARDS --

CoE: those weren't up for auction.



Rejected because this isn't a report.

I meant "six legislative cards"

--
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution

[ais523 via agora-business]

On Sun, 2022-03-06 at 19:13 +, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 2022, at 6:31 PM, nix via agora-business <
> > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > 
> > CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent was sent to all players.
> > 
> > CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent contained a "clear designation
> > of intent to be public.”
> 
> Grat.:
> 
> Rule 1728/43 requires a declaration of intent to "conspicuously and
> without obfuscation [specify] the action [and] the method". In
> editing eir Discord message, Jason went out of their way to make that
> specification inconspicuous.

Gratuitous:

Rule 1728 makes it clear that tabling an intent is an action. It's
therefore either valid or invalid at the time it's performed.

Subsequent behaviour by the player after taking an action can't
retroactively change whether or not it was valid.

[snip]
> > A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an
> > intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously
> > and without obfuscation specifying the action, the method
> > (including non- default parameter values), and optionally,
> > conditions.
> 
> Here, the “specifying conspicuously” is something that the person
> does. Considering the overall context of Jason’s actions (and there’s
> nothing in the rules to imply we shouldn’t do that), I don’t think
> anyone would argue that it was "specifying conspicuously”.
CFJ 3776 found that "[...] to allow future messages to retroactively
change the meaning of a past message would be totally antithetical to
the game's customs and best interests, allowing for example important
rule-defined mechanisms such as dependent actions to be bypassed
arbitrarily." So even if the rules are silent, there are three rule 217
tests counteracting this argument.

-- 
ais523

BUS: [Ministor] (@treasuror) monthly win card

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

Pursuant to R2624, and as rolled on the botspam discord channel, I grant a
win card to nix.

-the Ministor

Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution

[nix via agora-business]

On 3/6/22 11:27, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> Finding that a discord message was sent "to" me just because it says it
> was is ATEOISIDTHIDTHPAFALT, even if I'm known to sometimes be on that
> forum.  As it happens, I was on vacation.  When I came back to Discord
> (about 24 hours after the alleged notice), there were two messages where I
> had been pinged while I was away and I replied to those.  Those were
> clearly sent*to*  me using the technology of the forum.  Given that
> mechanism in Discord more or less defines sending a message "to" someone,
> any lost in the crowd weren't sent "to" me, any more than the message in
> DIS was by the CFJ 1888 precedent.

To me this is the most compelling argument. Just saying something *in* a
space I'm in isn't saying it *to* me. CFJ1888 indicates similar
thinking, that you have to in some way indicate you're sending it *to*
people. If this was done with an @everyone it would be clearly *to*
everyone.

--
nix
Herald

BUS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 3/6/22 12:06, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> The Device is on.
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
> device is off:" list:
> {{{
>  A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Device to a
>  specified player by announcement.
> }}}
> [secretsnail's suggestion. The other one seems too destabilising.
>
> I don't think this does anything yet, but it feels like it may have the
> potential to do something in the future.]
>

This is experiment 27.

I support.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

On 3/5/2022 11:32 AM, nix via agora-business wrote:
> On 3/5/22 12:31, nix via agora-business wrote:
>> CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent was sent to all players.
>>
>> CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent contained a "clear designation of 
>> intent to be public."
>>
>> Arguments for both: It was sent to a service that all players were able
>> to access, but it would've only been available to members that were
>> online between the original sending and the edit, so I question whether
>> it was sent*to*  any player that wasn't online at the time at all. Even
>> if it was, I question whether a designation is "clear" if it's
>> intentionally hidden from the recipient by being completely removed.
> 
> Did a quick search on some keywords ("public" and "all players") and
> this was the only seemingly relevant CFJ I could pull. I submit it for
> evidence:
> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1888
> 
> --
> nix
> Herald
> 

Lol, me again with the precedent.

Gratuitous:

Finding that a discord message was sent "to" me just because it says it
was is ATEOISIDTHIDTHPAFALT, even if I'm known to sometimes be on that
forum.  As it happens, I was on vacation.  When I came back to Discord
(about 24 hours after the alleged notice), there were two messages where I
had been pinged while I was away and I replied to those.  Those were
clearly sent *to* me using the technology of the forum.  Given that
mechanism in Discord more or less defines sending a message "to" someone,
any lost in the crowd weren't sent "to" me, any more than the message in
DIS was by the CFJ 1888 precedent.

The vacation itself is not particularly relevant (i.e. it didn't excuse me
from messages on an actual PF) but is a useful illustration, showing that
discord has a specific technology of addressing an email "to" me that was
used effectively on selected messages but that other messages weren't
actually "to" me.  A general statement like this is no more sent "to"
someone than if you left a message for me under a rock that you knew I
occasionally walked past and might happen to turn over.

Also, on the chance that this case itself has sent the original intent
"to" me, I object to all intents to win by apathy.

-G.