Re: (mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 2021-06-18 08:26, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G. I support the motion to reconsider. I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. Reasons: H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. -G. I support. This should not be taken as agreement, just a sign that I want this to go to a vote. -Aris I support as well.
Re: (mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to > >> respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of > >> course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed > >> at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held > >> any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's > no > >> ambiguity, what's the problem?" > >> > >> If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I > >> wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, > >> punished if I'm not. > >> > >> -G. > >> > > I support the motion to reconsider. > > I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. > > Reasons: > > H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some > discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the > forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a > moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. > > It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had > been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have > considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? > > When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed > against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, > including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. > > -G. I support. This should not be taken as agreement, just a sign that I want this to go to a vote. -Aris >
(mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to >> respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of >> course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed >> at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held >> any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no >> ambiguity, what's the problem?" >> >> If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I >> wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, >> punished if I'm not. >> >> -G. >> > I support the motion to reconsider. I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. Reasons: H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 6/14/2021 3:08 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: I judge CFJ 3916 FALSE. I intend to motion to reconsider this with 2 support. Frankly, this seems unfair and like trying to have it two ways. Let's say I had been PM. And let's say I failed to respond to the petition. Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G. I support the motion to reconsider.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 6/14/2021 3:08 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, 2021-06-13 at 15:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: > So a summary of my findings: > - it is the case that petitions are directed at an office, so you can > deputise to answer them > - but Murphy failed to clearly take the action of directing a petition > at an office (it's clear what action e was trying to take – directing a > petition at a person – but that action doesn't have any defined rules > effect, so it doesn't create a duty to respond) > - so no obligation was created, and so no deputisation, FALSE. > > I judge CFJ 3916 FALSE. > I intend to motion to reconsider this with 2 support. Frankly, this seems unfair and like trying to have it two ways. Let's say I had been PM. And let's say I failed to respond to the petition. Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On Sun, 2021-06-13 at 15:47 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3916. I assign it to ais523. > > CFJ, barring G.: G.'s attempt to deputise for Prime Minister on or > about Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:39:36 -0700 was effective. There are two sub-issues to this CFJ: a) does Rule 2143 mean "petition a person who holds at least one office", or "petition an office, delivering the petition to the officeholder as the representative of that office"? b) if Rule 2143 does require a particular office to be referenced, does Murphy's message succeed in identifying the Prime Minister as the office in question? At the heart of issue a), this is a dispute about what Rule 2143 is referring to when it says "A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified officer to take a specified action; the officer SHALL publicly respond to the petition in a timely fashion."; is "officer" being used in the sence of a "person who holds at least one office", or is it being used in the sense of "you can petition an office by petitioning the officer"? It's clear (rule 2160p1) that if the action is linked to the player, rather than the office, the deputisation wouldn't work. As for b): to me, the plain language of the wording of Murphy's message is "I petition G., who is possibly the Prime Minister". If we imagine a slight change in the message, "I petition G.; I know e's an officer, but can't remember whether it's Prime Minister or Arbitor", I wouldn't expect this to be a substantial change in the meaning of Murphy's message as it related to the petitioning. (I note in passing that G.'s statement that e couldn't respond to the petition, because e wasn't the prime minster, is wrong; maybe e couldn't fulfil a duty to respond, but it's perfectly possible to publicly respond to other people's petitions by posting an email containing a response. There isn't a defined action of "responding to a petition".) Rule 478 says "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". Murphy's message unambiguously and clearly specified an attempt to petition G., but I don't think it's identifying an attempt to petition a particular office sufficiently clearly (it's *mentioning* an office but there's no implication in the sentence that that office is the target of a petitioning; the mention of the Prime Minster looks more like "I think this petitioning is legal because G. is the Prime Minister, and it needs to be aimed at an officer" rather than "I aim this petition at the office of the Prime Minister, which happens to be held by G."). So the action that Murphy describes (petitioning a person) is not the action of petitioning that's defined in the rules, and thus it fails to create a rules-defined duty. So, we can see a link between points a) and b) here. If petitions are directed at a specific person (who happens to hold at least one office), then the petitioning worked, but it isn't possible to deputise to answer. If petitions are directed at an office, the petitioning failed. In either case, the CFJ is FALSE. It's still interesting to know which of these two scenarios actually happened, though (with the understanding that it doesn't affect the outcome of the CFJ). Looking at the uses of "office" vs. "officer" in the rules (in situations where the rules want to talks about officers in general): R2162: "one office" … "that officer" R1607,2137,1051: "one office" … "its holder" R2164: "appoint and remove officeholders" R1006: "An officer is the holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that office." R2630: "each officer" … "eir own office" R2154: "a specified elected office" … "holder of that office" R2573: "the holder of a specified elected office" R2160: "an action ordinarily reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office" R2138: "each office's Officeholder" (referring to the switch, not the officer!) R2143: "a specified officer" … "the officer" (what this CFJ is about) R2603: "which would otherwise lack an officer" (presumably this isn't supposed to trigger when there's a defined officer, but it's vacant) R2496: "the officer associated with the condition" (followed by a list of office names associated with conditions) R2581: "any officer" … "not holding that office" R2582: "the indicated officers" … "each indicated officer" Most of the rules are very clear on the office vs. Officeholder switch vs. person distinction. However, some are less clear, and give a window into what the game custom surrounding references to "officers" is. In particular, the wording in R2630 and R2581 is fairly persuasive to me that the custom is that "officers" are colloquially considered to be a different concept from the individual people who hold the offices; G.- as-Prime-Minister is a different "officer" from G.-as-Arbitor. Otherwise, they would effectively imply that nobody could hold more than one office,
