BUS: [Attn: Assessor, Registrar, Arbitor] grok playerhood

[grok via agora-business]

gonna do this all in one message, my apologies for not threading but i
think it make sense this way.

COE Registrar's report, grok became a player on saturday, february 5

COE assessor's report, grok was a player during the voting period and
eir present votes were legal

CFJ: grok became a player on saturday, february 5

CFJ gratuitous arguments: grok published intent to ratify a document
on friday, january 28. grok's argument was that since e was
deregistered  due to inactivity, grok never revoked eir consent to be
bound by the rules of agora. the ruling in CFJ 3943 determined that
intending to ratify a document does not require playerhood, since
intents can be withdrawn at any time.

grok published a message to business saying "i deregister" during that
time. CFJ 3945 found this action was ineffective.

on february 5, grok resolved the agoran decision to ratify eir
document. although the document was not ratified, grok resolved the
intent. this satisfies CFJ 3943's concern about the ambiguity of
intent, and since eir deregistration attempt was ineffective, grok
should be a player.

as a preempt--there may be an argument that publishing a message
claiming to deregister revokes one's consent to the rules, even if it
is ineffective. i would argue that since grok resolved eir intent and
called the original CFJ, eir "deregistration" message is more
accurately Faking since e knew it would be ineffective, and e should
receive discipline from the referee after eir playerhood is confirmed.

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8638-8644

[grok via agora-business]

I vote PRESENT on all proposals.

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, 7:53 PM Aspen via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> 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 5, 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
> ---
> 8638*   secretsnail 3.0   Cyan Ribbon Patch
> 8639*   G.  3.0   sole quorum
> 8640&   R. Lee  2.0   Minor ruleset edits
> 8641&   Jason, G.   2.0   Degrees are for persons
> 8642&   Jason, Ørjan2.0   Hot Potato patch v2
> 8643&   G.  1.7   Firing Judge Dredd
> 8644&   Jason, ais523   1.0   Device repeal patch
>
>
> The proposal pool contains the following proposals:
>
> Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> Murphy  3.0   No audience, no action
>
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> & : Ordinary proposal.
> ~ : Unsponsored 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: 8638
> Title: Cyan Ribbon Patch
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: secretsnail
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person
> deputises for an office, that person earns a Cyan Ribbon" with
> "Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, and that person has not
> held or deputized for that office within the past 7 days, that person earns
> a Cyan Ribbon".
>
> [Fixes an issue which lets a player repeatedly deputize for an office and
> award emself up to 5 cyan glitter.]
>
> //
> ID: 8639
> Title: sole quorum
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: G.
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3.
>
> [the basic definition of quorum should be power-3 along with the rest of
> voting, right?]
>
>
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing:
>   As an exception to the previous paragraph, the quorum of an
>   Agoran decision can never be less than 2. If the rules would
>   attempt to set the quorum of an Agoran decision to less than 2,
>   it is set to 2 instead.
> with:
>   As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
>   an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
>   the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an Agoran
>   decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the minimum
>   instead.
>
> [If 1 person is the only player, that should be quorum.  Less than 1 is
> game-breaking trouble, so minimum=1 protects extra against the final
> deregistration]
>
> //
> ID: 8640
> Title: Minor ruleset edits
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend rule 1023, "Agoran Time" by removing the text "Eastman
> weeks begin at midnight UTC on the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd,
> and 29th of each Gregorian month; the fifth one of the
> month (if any) lasts till the end of the month."
>
> and by removing the text
>
> "(e.g. Eastman weeks)"
>
>
> Amend rule 2531, "Defendant's Rights" by removing the last semicolon
> and the last "or" after section (9) and by inserting the text " or"
> between the word "Finger" and the semicolon at the end of section (8).
>
> Retitle rule 2531, "Defendant's Rights" to "Defendants' Rights"
>
> //
> ID: 8641
> Title: Degrees are for persons
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-author(s): G.
>
>
> Amend Rule 1367 ("Degrees") by replacing "A specified degree CAN be
> awarded" with "A specified degree CAN be awarded to a person".
>
> [Require that degrees are given to persons for their hard work, rather
> than arbitrary entities.]
>
> //
> ID: 8642
> Title: Hot Potato patch v2
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-author(s): Ørjan
>
>
> Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing "This stone cannot otherwise
> be transferred" with "If this stone is not owned by Agora, it cannot
> otherwise be transferred".
>
> [Allows transferring the Hot Potato stone from Agora in order to allow
> it to actually be auctioned off.]
>
> //
> ID: 8643
> Title: Firing Judge Dredd
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: G.
> 

Re: BUS: grok

[grok via agora-business]

I resolve this Agoran decision. With G's objection, the document is not
ratified.


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 11:19 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 1/28/2022 9:09 AM, grok via agora-business wrote:
> > I amend this action to read:
> >
> > RWO: grok was always a player
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 11:05 AM grok via agora-business <
> > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> grok was always a player
> >>
>
> I object.  fun question but it would be a real tangle in the records?
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [attn registrar] [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8635-8637

[grok via agora-business]

oh cool

i deregister


On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 6:43 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 1/31/22 19:24, grok via agora-business wrote:
> > If CFJ 3943 is TRUE, then I was a player two hours before the Agoran
> > decisions on adopting these proposals were initiated.
>
>
> It was judged FALSE [0].
>
> [0]:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-January/048174.html
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8635-8637

[grok via agora-business]

If CFJ 3943 is TRUE, then I was a player two hours before the Agoran
decisions on adopting these proposals were initiated.

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 5:30 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 1/31/22 14:32, grok via agora-business wrote:
> > I vote as follows:
> >
> >> 8635*   Murphy  4.0   Outside assistance
> > FOR
> >> 8636&   G.  1.5   Points
> > PRESENT
> >> 8637&   G., Jason   1.0   Basic Scoring v0.2
> > PRESENT
>
>
> These votes fail as you were not a player when the decisions were
> initiated.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] The Agoran Directory (weekly report)

[grok via agora-business]

COE grok is a player

(a CFJ was called re: grok playerhood. it has not been assigned [1])

[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg41604.html


On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 10:43 AM ATMunn via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> 
>   The Agoran Directory
> 
>
>
> Date of last report: 03 Nov 2021
> Date of this report: 31 Jan 2021
>
> Archive of reports on the web: https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/ *
> * not currently up-to-date
>
>
> Recent events
> =
> 24 Aug 2021: R. Lee deregisters Ubercrow without 3 objections
> 19 Sep 2021: R. Lee deregisters
> 22 Sep 2021: BigBobBingo ! registers
> 25 Sep 2021: Trapdoorspyder registers
> 26 Sep 2021: D. Wet deregisters
> 03 Oct 2021: Benbot² registers
> 03 Oct 2021: Shy Owl registers
> 07 Oct 2021: redtara registers
> 22 Oct 2021: R. Lee rgisters
> 22 Oct 2021: Shy Owl deactivates seventeenMachine with notice
> 22 Oct 2021: Shy Owl deactivates Pat with notice
> 22 Oct 2021: Shy Owl deactivates surprise with notice
> 22 Oct 2021: Shy Owl deactivates Nathan with notice
> 22 Oct 2021: Shy Owl deregisters Jumble without 3 objections
> -- time of last report --
> 03 Nov 2021: Shy Owl deregisters
> 12 Nov 2021: tris registers
> 28 Jan 2022: Sgeo registers
> 29 Jan 2022: secretsnail registers
>
>
> Players, activity, and registration dates
> =
>
> The following information from this section is self-ratifying:
> - The value of each instance of the Citizenship switch (implied by the
>list of players).
> - The value of each instance of the Activity switch.
>
> There are 24 Players. The below is a list of all players.
>
> Player   Registered  Activity  Last Changed  Notes
> --   --      -
> omd  03 Feb 11   Active03 Feb 21
> Aspen13 Sep 16   Active03 Feb 21
> Gaelan   15 May 17   Active03 Feb 21
> G.   25 Aug 17   Active03 Feb 21
> Madrid   25 Aug 17   Active03 Feb 21
> Trigon   24 Sep 17   Active03 Feb 21
> Murphy   17 Dec 17   Active03 Feb 21
> ATMunn   11 Mar 18   Active03 Feb 21
> Falsifian13 Feb 19   Active03 Feb 21
> Jason02 Jun 19   Active03 Feb 21
> nix  18 Oct 19   Active03 Feb 21
> cuddlybanana 16 Mar 21   Active16 Mar 21
> ais523   08 Jun 21   Active08 Jun 21
> Telna14 Jun 21   Active14 Jun 21
> BigBobBingo !22 Sep 21   Active22 Sep 21
> Trapdoorspyder   25 Sep 21   Active25 Sep 21
> Benbot²  03 Oct 21   Active03 Oct 21
> redtara  07 Oct 21   Active07 Oct 21
> R. Lee   22 Oct 21   Active22 Oct 21
> tris 12 Nov 21   Active12 Nov 21
> Sgeo 28 Jan 22   Active28 Jan 22
> secretsnail  29 Jan 22   Active29 Jan 22
> Nathan   19 Aug 20   Inactive  22 Oct 21
> seventeenMachine 17 Apr 21   Inactive  22 Oct 21 [1]
> surprise 20 Jun 21   Inactive  22 Oct 21
> Pat  23 Jul 21   Inactive  22 Oct 21
>
> [1] seventeen for short
>
> Contact information
> ===
>
> (Required by rule 2139.)
>
> Player   Contact
> --   ---
> omd  comexk at gmail.com [0]
> Aspenthoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com
> Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com
> G.   kerim at uw.edu
> Madrid   madridnomic at gmail.com [1]
> Trigon   reuben.staley at gmail.com
> Murphy   murphy.agora at gmail.com [2]
> ATMunn   iamingodsarmy at gmail.com
> Falsifianagora at falsifian.org
> Jasonjason.e.cobb at gmail.com
> nix  nixnull+agora at protonmail.com [3]
> Nathan   nathans.agora.email at gmail.com
> cuddlybanana rose.strong42 at gmail.com
> seventeenMachine 17sagoranomicinbox at gmail.com
> ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk
> Telnaagoratelna at iprimus.com.au
> surprise surprisenomic at gmail.com
> Pat  zettels_traum at tutanota.com
> BigBobBingo !arran.soule at gmail.com
> Trapdoorspyder   tdsagora at gmail.com
> Benbot²  benjaminfrancisrodriguez at gmail.com
> redtara  redxtara at gmail.com
> R. Lee   sarahestrange0 at gmail.com
> tris trstnbrdwg0 at gmail.com
> Sgeo sgeoster at gmail.com
> secretsnail  secretsnail9 at gmail.com
>
> [0] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
> [1] Formerly cuddlebeam at gmail.com.
> 

BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8635-8637

[grok via agora-business]

I vote as follows:

> 8635*   Murphy  4.0   Outside assistance
FOR
> 8636&   G.  1.5   Points
PRESENT
> 8637&   G., Jason   1.0   Basic Scoring v0.2
PRESENT

On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 2:41 PM Aspen via agora-official
 wrote:
>
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> 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 5, 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
> ---
> 8635*   Murphy  4.0   Outside assistance
> 8636&   G.  1.5   Points
> 8637&   G., Jason   1.0   Basic Scoring v0.2
>
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> & : Ordinary proposal.
> ~ : Unsponsored 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: 8635
> Title: Outside assistance
> Adoption index: 4.0
> Author: Murphy
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing "players" with
> "persons".
>
> [Explicitly avoids the interpretation suggested on CFJ 8591 that
>   the "players making arbitrary changes" clause requires a current
>   player, even if registration remains unblocked.]
>
> //
> ID: 8636
> Title: Points
> Adoption index: 1.5
> Author: G.
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Create the following power=1.5 rule, Points:
>
>   A player's Score, indicated in Points, is an integer player switch
>   defaulting to 0, tracked by the Herald.
>
>   Upon a correct announcement from a player that one or more players
>   have a score of 100+ points, all players meeting this condition
>   win the game.  If a least one player wins the game via such an
>   announcement, all players' scores are set to their default.
>
> //
> ID: 8637
> Title: Basic Scoring v0.2
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-author(s): Jason
>
>
> Create the following rule, "Scoring":
>
>   Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer
>   associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL
>   in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the
>   associated amount of points.
>
>   Below is a list of scoring conditions and their associated points
>   and officers.
>
> * Being the author of a sponsored proposal that takes effect:
>   1 + the power of the proposal when it takes effect (Assessor).
>
> * Being the coauthor of a sponsored proposal that takes effect:
>   1 (Assessor).
>
> * Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum on
>   a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at
>   the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome
>   of that assessment is ADOPTED:  points equal to the voting
>   player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor).
>
> [note: using "1 + the power of the proposal when it takes effect" instead
> of "the AI of the proposal" because the AI is unlimited while power
> iscapped at 4 by R106].
>
> [v0.2 - specified "add" instead of "change".
>   - change in referendum wording suggested by Jason.
> ]
>
> //

Re: BUS: grok

[grok via agora-business]

records saved

CFJ: grok is a player

gratuitous arg: ratifying a public document is a reserved action that
can only be done by players. grok was automatically deregistered by
inactivity and never revoked eir consent from agora. because grok's
consent has been given and has not been revoked, and e attempted to
take a game action, e must be registered at the time e attempted this
action. therefore, grok registered at 17:05 utc on friday, january 28.


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 11:19 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:
>
>
> On 1/28/2022 9:09 AM, grok via agora-business wrote:
> > I amend this action to read:
> >
> > RWO: grok was always a player
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 11:05 AM grok via agora-business <
> > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> grok was always a player
> >>
>
> I object.  fun question but it would be a real tangle in the records?
>

Re: BUS: grok

[grok via agora-business]

I amend this action to read:

RWO: grok was always a player


On Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 11:05 AM grok via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> grok was always a player
>

BUS: grok

[grok via agora-business]

grok was always a player

BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] New Speaker

[grok via agora-business]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2020, 4:56 PM nix via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Myself, grok, and Jason are laureled thanks to our swift victory in the
> nomaoic tournament. I appoint grok to speaker.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>

I award myself a platinum ribbon.

Long live the speaker.

>

Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[grok via agora-business]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 7:48 PM grok  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 7:33 PM nix via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/1/20 7:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> >
>> > On 9/1/20 2:17 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> >> I do so.
>> >>
>> >> Players may register by a public message; after that, they take turns
>> (making a proposal and gaining a random number of points) every 24-48 hours
>> by privately messaging me. Proposals are Suber-style, so each proposal must
>> create, amend, repeal, or transmute exactly one rule. Votes are also by
>> private messages to me. (There is no AGAINST vote; proposals pass as soon
>> as the required percentage of registered players vote for.) I'll publish
>> the hashes of any proposals that I receive, and announce when proposals
>> pass, but proposal text and the resulting ruleset are secret. When sending
>> proposals, it would be nice if you could include its SHA256 hash, so I can
>> ensure that I calculate it the same way you do. There is a mechanism for
>> discovering rules; see rule 213. Good luck and have fun!
>> >>
>> >> Gaelan
>> >>
>> >
>> > I become a player in Nomaoic.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Jason Cobb
>> >
>>
>> I also become a player in Nomaoic.
>>
>> --
>> nix
>> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>>
>
> i become a player in nomaoic
>
ttpf

>

BUS: [Attn arbitor] IRL happens

[grok via agora-business]

I request to be removed from the CFJ judging pool. If a CFJ is assigned to
me, I recuse.

BUS: [attn Arbitor] CFJ 3857 recusal

[grok via agora-business]

I humbly recuse myself from CFJ 3857.

BUS: A Pledge

[grok via agora-business]

For the next 24 hours, I pledge to do your will.

Re: [attn Herald] Re: BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3858

[grok via agora-business]

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)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3858

[grok via agora-business]

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: Judgment on CFJ 3848

[grok via agora-business]

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

Re: BUS: Vote on P8442

[grok via agora-business]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:23 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> On 6/22/20 9:44 PM, Unspecified Behavior via agora-business wrote:
> > I do not register, as I am already a player.
> >
> > I withdraw any vote I may or may not have cast on Proposal 8442. I vote FOR
> > on Proposal 8442.
>
>
> Well, I guess someone has to.
>
> I CFJ: "If the person who sent the above message is  a player, e cast a
> vote on Proposal 8442 in that message."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> "the above message" is at [0].
>
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043565.html
>
>
> Rule 478/48 [Excerpt]:
>
> >   A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
> >   all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
> >   public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
> >   message is considered a public message in its own right. To
> >   "publish" or "announce" something is to send a public message
> >   whose body contains that thing. To do something "publicly" is
> >   to do that thing within a public message.
> >
> >   Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
> >   announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously
> >   and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> >   it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the
> >   time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including
> >   sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the
> >   message, unless otherwise specified.
>
> }
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> Does the actor of the action need to be clearly specified for it to be
> performed by announcement? I don't see any text in the rules that
> necessarily implies so.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>

Gratuitous Arguments:

R478 defines "publishing" as a public message, which requires a "clear
designation of intent." R683 article 2 requires the publisher to be
"at the initiation of the decision, a player". Since
unspecifiedbehav...@gmail.com is not known as a player's primary or
alternate email address, the following two things are true:

1. It is unclear which player's vote the entity intends to withdraw.
2. It is unclear which player the entity intends to vote on behalf of.

1 has indeterminate intent, and should not be considered a
publication. 2 is more tenuous, but I argue without knowing the
identity of the voting player it is impossible to know which vote they
intend to change. A message without clear intent is not a public
message, and therefore cannot be a publication.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

[grok via agora-business]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 3:44 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:29 PM grok via agora-business
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 3:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > what is ISTIDDIES?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion <
> > > agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via
> > > agora-discussion
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1:
> > > > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels.
> > > > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it
> would
> > > > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels.
> > > > >
> > > > > Using what method?
> > > >
> > > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a
> > > > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win
> the
> > > > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to
> > > have a
> > > > dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule
> states
> > > that
> > > > players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100
> > > barrels.)
> > > >
> > > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently
> precise
> > > > to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who
> are
> > > > short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of
> an
> > > > ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to
> > > trigger
> > > > rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means
> > > > "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules
> > > that
> > > > want players to be able to perform an action under certain
> circumstances
> > > > state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas
> this
> > > > rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action
> is
> > > > automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by
> > > > restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost
> > > unprecedented
> > > > situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being
> > > > reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a
> > > > higher-powered rule).
> > > >
> > > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game
> without
> > > > 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or
> > > maybe
> > > > even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs
> me
> > > 100
> > > > barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new
> > > rule,
> > > > and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually
> > > > trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an
> > > > attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ais523
> > >
> >
> >
> > I submit the following notice of honour:
> >
> > +1 ais523 for thoughtful addition to the discussion
> > -1 cuddlebeam for eir "joke"
> >
> > >
>
> This fails because ais523 isn't a player.
>

I submit the following notice of honour:

+1 PSS for noticing my mistake
-1 Cuddlebeam for eir "joke"

>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 12:48 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Arbitor's Weekly Report
>
>
> DEADLINES (details below)
> ---
> 3831 Assigned to Publius Due Sun 07 Jun 2020 19:20:12
> 3838 Assigned to Publius Due Sun 07 Jun 2020 20:33:14
> 3839 Assigned to nch Due Sun 14 Jun 2020 17:28:35
> 3840 Assigned to G.  Due Sun 14 Jun 2020 17:29:06
> 3841 Assigned to Jason   Due Sun 14 Jun 2020 17:29:26
>
>
> INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
> ---
> 3834 R. Lee
> 3836 Murphy
> 3837 grok
> 3831 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 3839 nch
> 3840 G.
> 3841 Jason
>
> (Occasional)
> 3797 Falsifian
> 3807 Warrigal
> 3815 Cuddle Beam
> 3822 Aris
>
> Penalty box:  D. Margaux, omd, Gaelan.
>
>
> OPEN CASES
> ---
> 3841 Assigned to Jason [Due Sun 14 Jun 2020 17:29:26]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3841
>  In the above statement, I issued a Call for Judgement on whether I
>  transferred a coin to Agora in the statement preceding that one.
>
> 3840 Assigned to G. [Due Sun 14 Jun 2020 17:29:06]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3840
>  En la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora.
>
> 3839 Assigned to nch [Due Sun 14 Jun 2020 17:28:35]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3839
>  The game of Agora will never end.
>
> 3838 Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus [Due Sun 07 Jun 2020
> 20:33:14]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3838
>  Grok transferred one coin to me in the above quoted message.
>
> 3831 Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus [Due Sun 07 Jun 2020
> 19:20:12]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831
>  Murphy published a valid Notice of Honour today.
>
> RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
> ---
> 3837 Judged FALSE by grok [Sat 06 Jun 2020]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3837
>  Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
>  has an article titled "Sponge".
>
> 3836 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Fri 22 May 2020]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3836
>  The above CFJ statement is about the possibility of a game action
>  so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a judgement of
>  PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days.
>
> 3835 Judged IRRELEVANT by G. [Sat 16 May 2020]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3835
>  It is both possible and true that a rule named "A coin award" took
>  the game action of increasing the number of coins R. Lee owned by
>  1.
>
> 3834 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Sat 16 May 2020]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3834
>  In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber is
>  to set its chamber switch to that chamber.
>
> 3833 Judged FALSE by Jason [Wed 20 May 2020]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3833
>  In the above message, Trigon created a proposal.
>
> 3832 Judged FALSE by Trigon [Fri 08 May 2020]
>  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3832
>  CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, 'A recent rule named
>  "A coin award" was enacted, increased the number of coins R. Lee
>  owns by 1, and then repealed itself.' was a "CFJ about the
>  legality or possibility of a game action" under rule 2553, such
>  that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was assigned to it for seven
>  days, the caller of the CFJ would be eligible to win the game by
>  announcement under rule 2553.
>

COE: CFJ 3837 was judged IRRELEVANT by grok

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling

[grok via agora-business]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 3:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> what is ISTIDDIES?
>
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion <
> agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >  On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via
> agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1:
> > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels.
> > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would
> > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels.
> > >
> > > Using what method?
> >
> > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a
> > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the
> > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to
> have a
> > dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states
> that
> > players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100
> barrels.)
> >
> > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise
> > to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are
> > short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an
> > ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to
> trigger
> > rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means
> > "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules
> that
> > want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances
> > state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this
> > rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is
> > automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by
> > restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost
> unprecedented
> > situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being
> > reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a
> > higher-powered rule).
> >
> > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without
> > 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or
> maybe
> > even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me
> 100
> > barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new
> rule,
> > and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually
> > trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an
> > attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded!
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>


I submit the following notice of honour:

+1 ais523 for thoughtful addition to the discussion
-1 cuddlebeam for eir "joke"

>

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[grok via agora-business]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 1:24 PM James Cook via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 17:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > Alright, I Fulfill the Spell! Here we go!
> >
> >  暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
> > EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
> > 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
> >
> > AGORA SPIRIT OF THE GAME, I CALL UPON THEE, LISTEN TO ME EXCLAIM!!
> >
> >  暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
> > EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
> > 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
> >
> > SCAMS BEGONE FROM THIS PLACE, I BANISH THEE TO THE DARK NETHER FROM THE
> > WHICH YOU CAME!!
> >
> >  暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
> > EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
> > 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
> >
> > SCAMS BE GONE AND NEVER COME BACK, BURN FOREVER, DEPART WITH THIS
> FLAME!
> >
> >
> > WOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOO - BOOOSHA!
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > The ritual has been completed.
> > The scams have been banished from THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE.
> >
> > But, be careful, they may return. (In which case I recommend you buy more
> > banishment rituals).
> >
> > Thank you for your patronage!
>
>
> CFJ: In the message quoted above, Cuddle Beam altered the part of eir
> MYSTICAL MENAGERIE contract describing "Scam Banishment Ritual" (where
> for this purpose, deleting that section or destroying the whole contract
> count as altering that part).
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> It is plain for anyone to see that the Scam Banishment Ritual is a scam.
> Here I've quoted relevant parts of the contract:
>
> > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
> > Product in their ownership.
>
> ...
>
> > Spells are destructible assets that can be owned by any Player.
> Cuddlebeam
> > can Fulfill a Spell by announcement along mystical actions. Once
> Fulfilled,
> > the Spell is destroyed and its mystical effects will then benefit its
> owner
> > as described. The following are the Spells, their emoji representation,
> > their price in coins, and their mystical abilities.
> >
> > 龍 Scam Banishment Ritual [30 Coins]
> > A powerful rite which, when applied, it will mystically remove scams
> > present in a certain document by purifying it of evil, serving as an
> extra
> > safeguard against any possible rule-lawyering and legal debauchery. Can
> be
> > purchased and applied multiple times to further strengthen its purifying
> > effect.
>
> A few minutes ago, Cuddle Beam Fulfilled the Spell that I bought by
> annoucement:
>
> > Alright, I Fulfill the Spell! Here we go!
>
> As the only party to the MYSTICAL MENAGERIE contract, Cuddle Beam has
> the ability to modify the contract. Therefore, e removed the scam when e
> fulfilled the spell. So it should be TRUE.
>
> But wait! If it worked, then it wasn't a scam after all! So, eir action
> should not have affected it. So it should be FALSE.
>
> But if it didn't do anything, we're back where we started: it's a scam
> that doesn't actually have the power to purge all scams. So, again,
> TRUE.
>
> In conclusion, this should be judged PARADOXICAL.
>
>
> - Falsifian
>

Gratuitous: At an individual level, if the Before state of two independent
parts of the contract are scams and the After state of those part are not
scams, TRUE is a valid response. In that case, the contract went from Scam
to Less-Scam, which meets muster of the common definition of "removal". Key
here is that Cuddlebeam uses Scams in the plural, so we should expect eir
action removed at least two scams from the contract for the CFJ to be TRUE.

Similarly, if the Before of all parts of the contract are scams and the
After are still scams in each case OR only one scam is removed, FALSE is a
valid response.

Each unique element of the contract should be independently tested to
determine if it was a scam prior and if was still a scam after Cuddlebeam
performed the Mystical Spell. This should not be reduced ad nauseum, but I
would recommend independently testing each clause and asset.

>

BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3837 Judged FALSE by grok

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, 12:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837
> (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
>
> ===  CFJ 3837  ===
>
>   Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
>   has an article titled "Sponge".
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Falsifian
>
> Judge: grok
> Judgement: FALSE
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Falsifian:  24 May 2020 16:50:08
> Assigned to grok: 31 May 2020 19:06:51
> Judged FALSE by grok: 06 Jun 2020 18:07:34
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge", so this comes down to
> whether Falsifian owns at least one blot.
>
> Blots affect voting power, so this CFJ is not IRRELEVANT.
>
> According to the last two Referee reports (the second-last has
> self-ratified), Falsifian owns no blots. E has not gained any since.
> So FALSE.
>
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge (just now archived at
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20200524164258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge
> )
>
> From the latest referee report:
>
> >BlotsActive player
> >--
> >  1  G.
> >  2  Gaelan
> >  2  nch
> >  2  omd
> >  2  R. Lee
> >  2  twg
> >
> >BlotsZombie
> >---
> >
> >No fugitives exist.
>
> From the 2019-05-17 referee report:
>
> >BlotsActive player
> >--
> >  1  G.
> >  2  Gaelan
> >  1  Murphy
> >  2  nch
> >  2  omd
> >  2  twg
> >
> >BlotsZombie
> >---
> >
> >No fugitives exist.
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by nch:
>
> This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define a
> biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
> either individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
>
> A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to evaluate this, we are
> required to consider a world in which a common subject like "sponge" is
> not in Wikipedia.  A world like this might be strange in other ways. This
> is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical extrapolation of
> the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually exist" as defined
> for IRRELEVANT in R591.
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Falsifian:
>
> If you accept my previous argument, i.e. that my statement should be
> interpreted in the classical logic way, then there's nothing
> hypothetical in my statement.
>
> If you don't, then this seems like a good argument to me.
>
>
> --
>
> Judge grok's Arguments:
>
> Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge", so this comes down to
> whether Falsifian owns at least one blot.
>
> Blots affect voting power, so this CFJ is not IRRELEVANT.
>
> According to the last two Referee reports (the second-last has
> self-ratified), Falsifian owns no blots. E has not gained any since.
> So FALSE.
>
> ==
>


COE: I ruled this CFJ "IRRELEVANT"

>

BUS: CFJ 3837

[grok via agora-business]

Statement:

Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia has
an article titled "Sponge"

---

Caller's Arguments:

Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge", so this comes down to
whether Falsifian owns at least one blot.

Blots affect voting power, so this CFJ is not IRRELEVANT.

According to the last two Referee reports (the second-last has
self-ratified), Falsifian owns no blots. E has not gained any since.
So FALSE.

Caller's Evidence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge (just now archived at
https://web.archive.org/web/20200524164258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge)

>From the latest referee report:

>BlotsActive player
>--
>  1  G.
>  2  Gaelan
>  2  nch
>  2  omd
>  2  R. Lee
>  2  twg
>
>BlotsZombie
>---
>
>No fugitives exist.

>From the 2019-05-17 referee report:

>BlotsActive player
>--
>  1  G.
>  2  Gaelan
>  1  Murphy
>  2  nch
>  2  omd
>  2  twg
>
>BlotsZombie
>---
>
>No fugitives exist.

---

Gratuitous Arguments (this is not a comprehensive list):

nch: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define a
biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
either individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.

-

G: A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to evaluate this,
we are required to consider a world in which a common subject like
"sponge" is not in Wikipedia.  A world like this might be strange in
other ways.  This is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical
extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't
actually exist" as defined for IRRELEVANT in R591.

-

Falsifian: If you accept my previous argument, i.e. that my statement
should be interpreted in the classical logic way, then there's nothing
hypothetical in my statement.

If you don't, then this seems like a good argument to me.

-

ais523: although Blot ownership is not IRRELEVANT, the actual
statement of the CFJ is IRRELEVANT; there's no particular relevance in
the combination of Falsifian's blot holdings and the existence of a
particular Wikipedia article.

If CFJs like this one were deemed to be relevant, then judges could be
forced to evaluate the truth of almost arbitrary statements that had
nothing to do with Agora. I'd personally find this useful, but it
seems rather unfair on the judges.

---

Judgment:

I find the statement in CFJ 3837 to be IRRELEVANT.

---

Opinion:

I believe there are generally two prongs to explore in this CFJ. I
will answer them in order starting with my decision.

== 1 ==

The first question is whether the CFJ passes muster of relevance. G's
gratuitous arguments point to the letter of the law. R591's definition
of IRRELEVANT has three tests:

1. Is the question relevant to the game?
2. Is the question an "overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game"?
3. Can the question be trivially answered from another CFJ?

3837 passes the third test, as this question is not trivially answered
by another CFJ, complete or pending. Tests 1 and 2 are where we find
issues.

Falsifian argues in calling that blots affect voting power, and this
CFJ requests clarity on eir blots, so the CFJ is not IRRELEVANT. It is
true that blots are a gamestate question and RELEVANT, but I am
persuaded by ais523's argument that the existence of a particular
external circumstance is IRRELEVANT. While part of the question passes
muster, I do not see a clear link between the game state question and
the external question.

To clarify, I find the primary issue here to be a lack of announced
game state actions that link the external circumstance and Falsifian's
blot count. I do believe there are ways to take actions by
announcement that can link the gamestate to external elements
(Pledges, Faking, etc.), but absent one here I agree with ais523's
gratuitous argument that this CFJ is IRRELEVANT.

On relevance, I also am persuaded by G's gratuitous argument. While
the CFJ system has wide authority to render judgments, IRRELEVANT can
function as a "pressure release valve" to allow judges some purview to
dismiss overly hypothetical cases. I believe this interpretation can
be extremely valuable to prevent court clog and ensure the CFJ system
is used to primarily resolve game conflicts. I agree with both the
letter of the rule and the above interpretation, and find CFJ 3837
fails the second test and is IRRELEVANT.

I find this CFJ IRRELEVANT, as it is is not relevant to the game as a
whole and is an overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game rules

== 2 ==

There is a group of arguments between nch and Falsifian regarding the
linguistic implications of Falsifian's submitted statement. I believe
the conversation in the gratuitous arguments is worth reading without
my input, so I will simply provide my brief opinion on the results.

I personally 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, May 31, 2020, 3:46 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>  On Sunday, 31 May 2020, 20:29:09 GMT+1, grok via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > On Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:08 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > > === CFJ 3837
> ===
> > >
> > > Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
> > > has an article titled "Sponge".
> > >
> > >
> ==
> >
> > I am developing my opinion but think I'm missing some pieces, so I am
> > soliciting gratuitous arguments here.
> >
> > I pledge to give 1 shiny to the first three players who submit gratuitous
> > arguments on CFJ 3837 before my judgment is submitted.
>
> Arguments: although Blot ownership is not IRRELEVANT, the actual statement
> of the CFJ is IRRELEVANT; there's no particular relevance in the
> combination of
> Falsifian's blot holdings and the existence of a particular Wikipedia
> article.
>
> If CFJs like this one were deemed to be relevant, then judges could be
> forced to
> evaluate the truth of almost arbitrary statements that had nothing to do
> with Agora.
> I'd personally find this useful, but it seems rather unfair on the judges.
>
> --
> ais523


I transfer 1 shiny to ais523

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:35 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 5/31/2020 12:29 PM, nch via agora-business wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official
> wrote:
> >> The below CFJ is 3837.  I assign it to grok.
> >>
> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837
> >>
> >> ===  CFJ 3837
> ===
> >>
> >>   Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
> >>   has an article titled "Sponge".
> >>
> >>
> ==
> >
> > Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not
> define a
> > biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
> either
> > individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.
> >
>
> Gratuitous:  A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to evaluate
> this, we are required to consider a world in which a common subject like
> "sponge" is not in Wikipedia.  A world like this might be strange in other
> ways.  This is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical
> extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually
> exist" as defined for IRRELEVANT in R591.
>

I transfer 1 shiny to g

>

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:29 PM nch via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official
> wrote:
> > The below CFJ is 3837.  I assign it to grok.
> >
> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837
> >
> > ===  CFJ 3837
> ===
> >
> >   Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
> >   has an article titled "Sponge".
> >
> >
> ==
>
> Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not define
> a
> biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
> either
> individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.
>
> --
> nch
>

I transfer 1 shiny to nch.

>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3837 Assigned to grok

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:08 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> The below CFJ is 3837.  I assign it to grok.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837
>
> ===  CFJ 3837  ===
>
>   Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
>   has an article titled "Sponge".
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Falsifian
>
> Judge: grok
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Falsifian:  24 May 2020 16:50:08
> Assigned to grok: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Wikipedia has an article titled "Sponge", so this comes down to
> whether Falsifian owns at least one blot.
>
> Blots affect voting power, so this CFJ is not IRRELEVANT.
>
> According to the last two Referee reports (the second-last has
> self-ratified), Falsifian owns no blots. E has not gained any since.
> So FALSE.
>
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge (just now archived at
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/20200524164258/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge
> )
>
> From the latest referee report:
>
> >BlotsActive player
> >--
> >  1  G.
> >  2  Gaelan
> >  2  nch
> >  2  omd
> >  2  R. Lee
> >  2  twg
> >
> >BlotsZombie
> >---
> >
> >No fugitives exist.
>
> From the 2019-05-17 referee report:
>
> >BlotsActive player
> >--
> >  1  G.
> >  2  Gaelan
> >  1  Murphy
> >  2  nch
> >  2  omd
> >  2  twg
> >
> >BlotsZombie
> >---
> >
> >No fugitives exist.
>
> ==
>

I am developing my opinion but think I'm missing some pieces, so I am
soliciting gratuitous arguments here.

I pledge to give 1 shiny to the first three players who submit gratuitous
arguments on CFJ 3837 before my judgment is submitted.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Cantus Counterscam

[grok via agora-business]

On Sun, May 24, 2020, 12:47 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 21 May 2020 at 15:40, grok (caleb vines) via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Title: Cantus Counterscam
> > Author: grok
> > Co-Author: nch
> > AI: 3
> >
> > Modify Rule 1789/11 "Cantus Cygneus" by inserting the following
> > paragraph at the end:
> >
> > "A person deregistered by Cantus Cygneus CANNOT register or be
> > registered for 30 days after the Registrar posts eir Writ of FAGE."
> >
> > }
>
> I'm reminded of this appeal from ais523 from the previous Write of
> FAGE, shortly before I joined:
>
> > On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 01:58 +1100, Telnaior wrote:
> > > Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister
> > > by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could
> > > come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets
> > > me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually
> > > bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once)
> >
> > Please nobody ever close this loophole. It only gets used once every
> > few years and the results always seem to be hilarious.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-January/053037.html
>
> - Falsifian
>

I withdraw the proposal "Cantus Counterscam"

>

BUS: [Proposal] Auction End Clarification

[grok via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

Title: Auction End Clarification
Adoption Index: 1
Author: grok
Coauthors: g

{

Replace the first paragraph of rule 2551 Auction End with the following:

"An Auction ends immediately when any of the following conditions are met:

1. The auction was initiated 7 days ago.

2. The auction was initiated at least 96 hours ago, and it has been 96
hours since the most recent placement or withdrawal of a bid in that
auction.

3. The auction was initiated 96 hours ago and no bids have been placed
or withdrawn in that auction.

4. The auction is terminated."

}