RE: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
Pavitra wrote:
ais523 wrote:
calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both
(but must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules
A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or Dual.
I thought of that. May as well.
The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with
respect to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only
be initiated with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect
to Hidden contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity
case with respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null
judgement.
This logic should be elsewhere, like rules 2169 (...in the operation
of a particular Equitable or Dual contract) and 1742 (Parties to a
Legal or Dual contract SHALL act in accordance...).
Actually for the latter you probably have the right idea organizing it
by Enforceability, so something like Parties to a Loose,
non-Equitable contract SHALL act as specified by that contract.
Aha! Yes, that's the best way to do it, probably
Agreement (Power 2)
{{{
At any given time, for each document, each person is either not
agreeing to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that
document, or publically agreeing to that document; this is a
persistent status that can change only as described by rules with
power at least 1.5.
This should be a switch. Agreement is a switch possessed by each
ordered pair of the form (person, document), with the possible values
Demurring (default), Conspiring, and Professing.
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
and could have ceased to agree to the document in question
during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no
effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other
than the ceasing to agree itself.
This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership
is restricted to parties.
Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract
specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good
thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more
Protection-racket-like mousetraps.
Pledge is a possible value for Enforceability. A Pledge contract
can also be known as merely a pledge, unless this is unclear from
context.
I'm not sure this could be abused in the case of pledges, but in
general -- do these rules enable one person to unilaterally disband a
contract by agreeing to a document with identical text, but doing so
in a way that changes its Enforceability or Spirit? If not, can you
explain exactly how they don't?
They don't, because the method by which a player agrees depends on its
current Enforceability. There isn't a mechanism to agree to someone
else's contract unless it specifically allows it, and even Unbinding
documents can restrict who can agree to them. So that handles
Enforceability. Spirit's deduced from the Enforceability and the
document's text (just like pledgeness used to be), so that isn't a
problem either.
Entities can act on behalf of parties to a contract as
specifically, clearly and unambiguously specified in a Public
contract, pledge, or Loose contract whose text is publically
available;
Entities can act on behalf of parties to a Public, Pledge, or Loose
contract whose text is publically available as that contract clearly
and unambiguously specifies.
Looks good.
Pavitra, who totally wants coauthor credit on this
Of course, this probably needs a lot of feedback to work and everyone
who helps will get credit for the final proposal.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Joshua Boehme wrote: A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within ninety days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing this, I'd personally just write an equally pissed-off letter followed by this is not a Cantus Cygnus, I deregister. The point of Writ of FAGE is to give a colorful outlet and thus perhaps defuse the tension, it shouldn't be punished. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
Elliott Hird wrote: Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a jurisdiction larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for. Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have infinite scope. So, I'm starting a new game of nomic! Here are the rules: These rules are, of course, not the rules of Agora, to which CFJ 24 refers. 4. ehird can create rules in Agora, This mechanism is trivially ineffective in Agora, because nothing in Agora gives effect to the rules of your nomic. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote: Elliott Hird wrote: Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a jurisdiction larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for. Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have infinite scope. Well that's very fair to other nomics ... perhaps we should platonically declare that all nomics are Protectorates? So, I'm starting a new game of nomic! Here are the rules: These rules are, of course, not the rules of Agora, to which CFJ 24 refers. Obviously. 4. ehird can create rules in Agora, This mechanism is trivially ineffective in Agora, because nothing in Agora gives effect to the rules of your nomic. Nothing in the laws of physics gives effect to the rules of Agora.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
Elliott Hird wrote: perhaps we should platonically declare that all nomics are Protectorates? We could, but it doesn't seem very useful. Nothing in the laws of physics gives effect to the rules of Agora. Agora doesn't need the approval of the laws of physics. Agora is sovereign. -zefram
Re: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
ais523 wrote: * There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the person was aware of or could easily have found out that an attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made, and could have ceased to agree to the document in question during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other than the ceasing to agree itself. This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership is restricted to parties. Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more Protection-racket-like mousetraps. If a contract can reach outside itself to specify direct penalties, then something's wrong right there. A more interesting case would be requiring the remaining parties to act against the ex-party's interests (vote against eir proposals, etc.). The other side of this is that a party who owns assets backed by the contract and restricted to its parties, and who didn't object to an amendment but forgot to explicitly consent, would automatically cease to agree (and, ironically, lose those assets).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, Elliott Hird wrote: On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote: Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have infinite scope. Well that's very fair to other nomics ... perhaps we should platonically declare that all nomics are Protectorates? Refinement: Infinite in *potential* scope. We could pass rules to so declare, but in the absence of said rules it is not so. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: 5977 D 1 2.0 Elysion Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later This may very well bring back ungoverned natural partnerships, which were after all introduced by CFJ where the rules were silent. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: 5977 D 1 2.0 Elysion Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later This may very well bring back ungoverned natural partnerships, which were after all introduced by CFJ where the rules were silent. -G. No, that only happened in the absence of a specific definition of personhood, like the one we now have in R2150. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: Fix Highly Limited Partnerships (AI = 2, II = 0, please) Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing second-class with non-first-class. How is this an improvement? -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5972-5981
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5972 D 1 2.0 rootContract terminology clean-up FOR 5973 D 1 2.0 woggle Highly Limited Partnerships FOR, but needs a fix (see below) 5974 D 0 2.0 Murphy I can has grammar FOR 5975 D 1 3.0 Murphy This sounds like a job for the Rulekeepor FOR 5976 O 0 1.5 Murphy My logic is undeniable FOR x 8 5977 D 1 2.0 Elysion Shoot Them All and Sort it Out Later AGAINST 5978 D 1 2.0 Elysion Maximum Voting Limits FOR 5979 D 1 2.0 Murphy Clarify quorum alterations FOR 5980 D 1 2.0 Elysion Reign in the Aristocracy AGAINST 5981 D 1 2.0 Elysion Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It v1.1 AGAINST (make it 30 and I'll support) Proposal: Fix Highly Limited Partnerships (AI = 2, II = 0, please) Amend Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora) by replacing second-class with non-first-class. Actually, the rules do define second-class
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA bandwagon!
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 07:16, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I PBA-deposit an 8 crop. I PBA-withdraw a 1 crop. I harvest 107, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops. I harvest 955, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops. I harvest 1728, an amended power-3 rule, for 8 crops. [using an X as a 1 crop if my withdrawal above failed] ehird, you are missing this on your PBA report. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}
Anyone want to run for Rulekeepor? I no longer have trust in the
document. -Goethe
Please note that my actual published FLR does not contain any of these
outlandish annotations.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
comex wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}
CoE: ineffective, same situation as CFJ 2272 (without even the part
that would be a legit annotation on its own, this time).
This one, however, is in the form of an annotation, albeit one with
legal effect (but annotations aren't usually inserted directly into
text, either.) Admittedly this violates the requirement that the
annotation MUST include certain things, but MUST is MMI-defined to
mean SHALL.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing this, I'd personally just write an equally pissed-off letter followed by this is not a Cantus Cygnus, I deregister. The point of Writ of FAGE is to give a colorful outlet and thus perhaps defuse the tension, it shouldn't be punished. -G. It's not punishment. It's to ensure that you *really* want to leave. Perhaps we should do 15 and 30 instead of 30 and 90? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ehird, comex, Quazie, and myself have failed to meet their obligations per section 10 of the Vote Market agreement. Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the above-mentioned parties to purchase vote points from the other parties at the current RBoA rate.
DIS: Re: BUS: sigh
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 16:20 -0500, comex wrote: Of course you might complain that I don't annotate the Ruleset with CFJs. Which is fair-- if someone has the spare time to, let them hold the office... R2166: CFJ 1911: This rule does not allow the creation of persons by announcement. R2215: CFJ 1921: A statement made to a PF stating that someone agrees to a contract is agreement to the contract due to this rule, even if not phrased as an action. R2166: CFJ 1922: If more than one type of asset has the same name, attempts to transfer them fail unless they specify which is meant. R1504: CFJ 1924: Tariffs can be dependent on other factors, instead of being merely fixed uncomputable durations. R2198: CFJ 1926: Players cannot generally leave pledges by announcement. R754: CFJ 1930: Definitions in the rules provide default definitions for contracts, unless the contract specifically states a different definition is wanted. R1504: CFJ 1935a: If someone alleges that an illegal action happened over 200 days ago, a resulting criminal case must therefore be found OVERLOOKED, even if the illegal action actually happened more recently. R2158: CFJ 1938: Just because a judgement is an obvious scam does not mean it is necessarily inappropriate. R1742: CFJ 1941: A contract can allow arbitrary persons to act on behalf of its parties. R1742: CFJ 1946: It is impossible to agree to a contract that says you can't agree to it, as such an agreement is self-contradictory. R101: CFJ 1952: A criminal CFJ is not itself a punishment for the purposes of this rule. R2157: CFJ 1953: Causing an appeals panel to do something illegal is not a violation of the rule the appeals panel broke, but of rule 2157. R2166: CFJ 1956: It is possible for two fungible assets of the same type to own different amounts of another type of asset. R2198: CFJ 1958: Specifying a means for the termination of a contract does not imply that that means is POSSIBLE. R683: CFJ 1959: The validity of votes is evaluated instantaneously, rather than at the time the votes are cast. R2143: CFJ 1971: A disclaimer saying that information in a report is not necessarily true prevents the report being a report. R2166: CFJ 1978: The asset holdings in a report self-ratify even if there is a claim of error against a different part of that report. R2191: CFJ 1980: If a contract's internal state is uncertain, and this affects the contract's statement as to whether it is a pledge, this causes it to be uncertain whether the contract is a pledge. R101: CFJ 1981: A punishment must be handed down by the rules to qualify as a punishment under this rule and thus prevent future punishments. R591: CFJ 1983: Inquiry cases generally exist even if the statement given is not gramatically a statement. R1868: CFJ 1990: It is POSSIBLE (although illegal) for the CotC to assign a poorly qualified entity to a CFJ. R478: CFJ 1994: A message happens at the time it is sent (by leaving the sender's technical domain of control), even if it does not arrive until later. R2193: CFJ 2002: This rule is the Monster, due to its name. R2215: CFJ 2004: A rhetorical statement does not have a truth value, and so does not mislead people as to its truth. R1504: CFJ 2007: This rule makes it impossible to put players into the chokey by announcement. R2141: CFJ 2013: Rules can allow, disallow and/or mandate physically impossible actions, but this does not mean that a rule can cause such an action to happen. R754: CFJ 2014: Referring to I when acting on behalf of someone else is ambiguous. R1742: CFJ 2017: It is impossible to make a player into a contract by agreeing to em. R478: CFJ 2021: public in public message and public forum has a different meaning; a public message which is a forum is not necessarily a public forum. R101: CFJ 2032: This rule prevents contests which bribe their parties to fail to excercise their rights under this rule from working. R1922: CFJ 2035: Judging that someone may be awarded the title of Scamster does not mean that the judge CAN award that title. R2145: CFJ 2042: Judgements in equity cases can affect the parties to partnerships bound by the judgement, even if the parties of the partnerships have changed since or the partnerships have been dissolved. R101: CFJ 2052: There is a strong presumption that excercising rights under this rule is not inequitable behaviour. R2150: CFJ 2055: Persons do not lose to be persons merely by losing access to email. R478: CFJ 2056: One message sent via multiple fora is still just one message. R2145: CFJ 2057: Partnerships are still persons if at least to persons SHALL ensure they meet their obligations, even if they CANNOT. R101: CFJ 2060: This rule does not prevent excess CFJs being refused as the CFJs could be filed again later. R754: CFJ 2062: Synonyms created via rot13 or other simple encryption schemes are synonyms for the purpose of this rule if instructions for decoding them are given in the same message. R2178: CFJ 2064: Changes to public contracts
DIS: Re: BUS: sigh
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008, comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate myself as Rulekeepor. I nominate myself as Rulekeepor. I don't like to abuse positions of trust, but if my scam-annotation works, it works only because of powers given to me by a scam-- if I held some other office or no office it would have just been a different buggy proposal. I don't consider that an abuse of trust. As long as you (as you clarified) are conservative in waiting for the CFJs before publishing the actual document, I agree, no worries. Of course you might complain that I don't annotate the Ruleset with CFJs. Which is fair-- if someone has the spare time to, let them hold the office... I was wondering if producing a monthly Historian's memo suggesting CFJ-based Rules annotations might be worth proposing, give something concrete for the Historian to do. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Nov 2008, at 21:27, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the above-mentioned parties to purchase vote points from the other parties at the current RBoA rate. Argument: PBA. This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them cheaply first.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them cheaply first. On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps being scammed, etc. Lesser of two evils.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Cantus Cygneus Only If You Mean It (AI=2)
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:21:06 -0800 Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:38 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why make it different than 30-days due to normal deregistration? Facing this, I'd personally just write an equally pissed-off letter followed by this is not a Cantus Cygnus, I deregister. The point of Writ of FAGE is to give a colorful outlet and thus perhaps defuse the tension, it shouldn't be punished. -G. It's not punishment. It's to ensure that you *really* want to leave. Perhaps we should do 15 and 30 instead of 30 and 90? Indeed. It is rather anti-climactic for someone to make a grand exit, only to return soon thereafter. -- Elysion
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:06 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2271 == None of the attempted registrations (P1 through P100) in comex's quoted message were succesful. Judge: BobTHJ ^^ Oh irony, thy name is Agora. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
Elysion wrote: Oh irony, thy name is Agora. That one was not accidental.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:05, Ed Murphy wrote: That one was not accidental. Hahahahahaha
DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and
encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the
annotations so tracked.
--
Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elysion wrote: Oh irony, thy name is Agora. That one was not accidental. So, do we have an Annabel situation if BobTHJ's reregistration after eir Cantus Cygneus never happened?
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:31:06 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Caller's Arguments: Rule 869 states in part: A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. The question is, does the so in the second sentence refer to deregister[ing] or to deregister[ing] by announcement? If the latter, then even deregistrations by means of a Cantus Cygneus trigger a thirty day window. Bah, and that should have been If the former not If the latter. That'll teach me to fight scams faster than I can think. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote: Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the annotations so tracked. But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT. - It becomes part of the rule's text = binding.
DIS: Re: BUS: Just in case
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:03:20 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic. I support. With 2 support, I make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic, if possible. I issue a claim of error against the-AFO-via-comex's purported resolution of 5962, as it misreported my vote. (comex, you typoed and bought my vote on 5952 instead of 5962.) I didn't spot any similar errors with 5956 (i.e. the only point of contention is how many of ehird's votes were valid), but others are invited to double-check and make sure. Rule 2034/4 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) [snip] Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution. The only argument I can see around that is to argue that a substantially and deliberately incorrect attempted resolution fails to satisfy 208(c), and thus the Agoran decisions on proposals 5956 and 5962 have not been resolved. -- Elysion
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote: Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal force to the annotations so tracked. But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT. - It becomes part of the rule's text = binding. The actual verbiage is ...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation At best, this is self-contradictory. The word amend implies that the text is changed; the word annotation implies that the text is not changed. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Just in case
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:01 PM, Joshua Boehme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only argument I can see around that is to argue that a substantially and deliberately incorrect attempted resolution fails to satisfy 208(c), and thus the Agoran decisions on proposals 5956 and 5962 have not been resolved. This is the standard interpretation, even in the case of accidentally incorrect voting results. However, each of the voting results I published was intended to be correct; although some were not due to my mistake, depending on some obscure interpretation issues (Vote Market, proposal vs. decision) I believe that my most recent one worked as expected.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2271 assigned to BobTHJ
comex wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Elysion wrote: Oh irony, thy name is Agora. That one was not accidental. So, do we have an Annabel situation if BobTHJ's reregistration after eir Cantus Cygneus never happened? No, because the Registrar's report was later ratified.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Just in case
Elysion wrote: On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:03:20 -0800 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: root wrote: On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic. I support. With 2 support, I make Proposals 5956 and 5962 democratic, if possible. I issue a claim of error against the-AFO-via-comex's purported resolution of 5962, as it misreported my vote. (comex, you typoed and bought my vote on 5952 instead of 5962.) I didn't spot any similar errors with 5956 (i.e. the only point of contention is how many of ehird's votes were valid), but others are invited to double-check and make sure. Rule 2034/4 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) [snip] Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution. The only argument I can see around that is to argue that a substantially and deliberately incorrect attempted resolution fails to satisfy 208(c), and thus the Agoran decisions on proposals 5956 and 5962 have not been resolved. If the results were incorrect (even accidentally), then it falls afoul of 208(c) and thus isn't a resolution. The point of self-ratification is to legitimize purported resolutions with errors minor enough that they go undetected.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The actual verbiage is ...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by adding a historical annotation At best, this is self-contradictory. The word amend implies that the text is changed; the word annotation implies that the text is not changed. The following is recognized as a historical annotation to Rule 101: [CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.] That is to say, the Rules should be interpreted such that players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions, as established by CFJ 24. The effects of this in a Rule are unclear (would this just legislate that CFJ 24 says players must ...?) but consider the following alternate annotation: Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions; this was established by CFJ 24. This too is an annotation (mw: a note added by way of comment or explanation): the note purports to explain what Rule 101 means, and it would be a reasonable addition to some sort of annotated ruleset, perhaps as an introductory sentence to some text containing more information about the circumstances of the calling of CFJ 24.* What if this note was added to the text of the Rule itself? Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions; this was established by CFJ 24. Exactly the same text would serve in a Rule to create the explicit obligation to follow the Rules even in out-of-game actions. My annotation is similar: Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months, cause this rule to amend itself by announcement. Although in a Rule this text clearly is functional, it would equally well serve as an annotation to the rule, added to explain some CFJ: [Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months, cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.] If some CFJ decided that my scam worked this might be an appropriate annotation.
DIS: Re: BUS: Informing
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:42 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wooble, I inform you of the following criminal case and invite you to rebut the argument for your guilt: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2280 In many of the world's great legal systems, there is a notion that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the fact that the CotC accepted the plaintiff's claim that e had received 2 support from Players of the game assumes that my statement that I had deregistered ehird was false and that I was therefore GUILTY. If this CFJ exists, I must be GUILTY, and the fact that the courts are treating it as if it exists shows a bias inherent in the system. Since I cannot receive a fair trial, it would be manifestly unjust to assign any judgment other than GUILTY/DISCHARGE. If there is in fact a criminal CFJ with me as the defendant, I hereby end the pre-trial phase. This fails if the appropriate judgment is UNIMPUGNED. Consider this message to be informal support of the initiation of the CFJ. [My message, not Wooble's, of course]
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What if this note was added to the text of the Rule itself? Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions; this was established by CFJ 24. Exactly the same text would serve in a Rule to create the explicit obligation to follow the Rules even in out-of-game actions. Indeed, but as a part of the text it would no longer be an annotation. -root
