Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature, if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the clear statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous, because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by "unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text. That might also cover burying such stuff deeply in long messages, which I recall to be a frowned-upon tradition. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
>>> For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend” I think “plan” is sufficiently synonymous with “intend”, especially because I expressly invoked the “method” of Rule 1728(1) (that is, the without-objection-intent method). >>> This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. Thanks! :-D On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > > questions for the judge to consider: > > > > 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous > > consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a > legislature, > > if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said > > "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick > > very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the > clear > > statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous > > because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. > > > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). > > It's also worth pointing out that we're getting lax. A message such as > that would likely have drawn an "I object" simply out of general > principles if it were made a few years ago. Perhaps this atmosphere of > general paranoia is something that it'd be useful to restore, just in > case considerably worse scams than this come along. (It's also good to > see the "scam lightning rod" effect of Apathy working; part of its > reason for existence was the hope that people who found a viable scam > against dependent actions would simply use it for the Apathy win rather > than something that could do rather more damage than that.) > > For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail > is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend", which may have been > defined away from its normal English meaning at some point. (We have > history of allowing "I intend to do X" even in situations where the > rules require players to tell the truth, and the player doesn't > actually have a natural-language intention to do X, on the basis that > that's a speech action rather than a statement of plans. However, that > may have been based on a good-of-the-game argument that "sometimes you > need to leave floating intents around to, e.g., guard against scams".) > > This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > questions for the judge to consider: > > 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous > consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature, > if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said > "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick > very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the clear > statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous > because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). It's also worth pointing out that we're getting lax. A message such as that would likely have drawn an "I object" simply out of general principles if it were made a few years ago. Perhaps this atmosphere of general paranoia is something that it'd be useful to restore, just in case considerably worse scams than this come along. (It's also good to see the "scam lightning rod" effect of Apathy working; part of its reason for existence was the hope that people who found a viable scam against dependent actions would simply use it for the Apathy win rather than something that could do rather more damage than that.) For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend", which may have been defined away from its normal English meaning at some point. (We have history of allowing "I intend to do X" even in situations where the rules require players to tell the truth, and the player doesn't actually have a natural-language intention to do X, on the basis that that's a speech action rather than a statement of plans. However, that may have been based on a good-of-the-game argument that "sometimes you need to leave floating intents around to, e.g., guard against scams".) This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
Very sorry for misnaming you, G. :-) Further responses: >>> I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be "unambiguously" clear. The announcement of intent stated that I planned to take an action using the “method” in R1728(1). There is only one paragraph numbered (1) in Rule 1728 that specifies a method for taking an action—the “without N objections” method. It clearly and unambiguously could not mean any other paragraph, because no other paragraph 1 specifies any relevant method. And it is even /more/ clear and unambiguous when we take account of the fact that the intent says it will be executed unless there’s “any one” objection. So, in my view, there is no ambiguity here at all (and I think you aren’t saying you necessarily think there is). >>> I agree, [that the intent] was a clear statement that you *would* not [take the action if there were an objection], but it isn't a clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" legally needs to imply. The Rule itself does not make that distinction though. Under the Rule, this sentence is obviously OK: “I will take [an action] without 1 objection.” That doesn’t say the person “could not” take that action if an objection is registered; instead it implies that the person “will not” take it. The Rule does not require someone to say that they “CANNOT take the action with 1 objection”, but only requires that a person clearly and unambiguously specify the number of objections that they set N equal to. I submit that I did that clearly and unambiguously. > parliamentary vs. nomic traditions Seems to me that the stated intent is well within the spirit of the game. The rules could, but do not, specify a particular formulation of words to state a “without objection” intent. That seems to me to be a loophole that should be exploited in accordance with the spirit of nomic. Fun! :-D On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > questions for the judge to consider: > > 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous > consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature, > if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said > "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick > very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the > clear > statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous, > because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). > > Some detail responses: > > In particular, as Aris [sic] emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but > there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact > (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be > "unambiguously" clear. > > > it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" > > person objected > > I agree, it was a clear statement that you *would* not, but it isn't a > clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" > legally needs to imply. > > -G. > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ > is TRUE. > > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > unambiguous. It clearly
Re: DIS: Email Weirdness (Reprise)
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Working fine for me, but this happened to me 2 months ago and it turned out > the Agoranomic > had magically set my preferences on the mailing list info to turn off > delivery. I think > that happened to a couple others too, so check preferences. Nope, "Mail delivery" is still "Enabled" for me. I've re-saved the preferences though so hopefully that has an effect. > On a related note, is there a reason that replying to messages from you > always brings > up both the Discussion list and your personal email in the "to" field? I > always have > to edit out your address (though in this case I'm leaving it in). Doesn't > happen with > anyone else's. I have noticed this too. It is mildly irritating because if someone replies to both me and the list itself, then when I try to reply to eir reply, my own "to" field autofills to their address alone (and _not_ the list itself). For example, here, Aris replied both to me and to DIS, and I accidentally replied to em alone: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg44545.html Looking at the copies of my own messages that I have received from the list, it appears this header is causing the problem: Reply-To: Timon Walshe-Grey , "Agora Nomic discussions \(DF\)" However, I don't know why the list server is adding it - I've checked and it certainly isn't there when it leaves my email provider. -twg
Re: DIS: Email Weirdness (Reprise)
Working fine for me, but this happened to me 2 months ago and it turned out the Agoranomic had magically set my preferences on the mailing list info to turn off delivery. I think that happened to a couple others too, so check preferences. On a related note, is there a reason that replying to messages from you always brings up both the Discussion list and your personal email in the "to" field? I always have to edit out your address (though in this case I'm leaving it in). Doesn't happen with anyone else's. On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my > own messages, > to any forum, today - the most recent one was "Re: BUS: Land stuff" > yesterday, when I moved > to (-2, 2). I have received everyone else's messages, though. Anyone else > having the same > thing happen? > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Email Weirdness (Reprise)
Oh, but I did get this one. How bizarre. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, September 13, 2018 9:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my > own messages, to any forum, today - the most recent one was "Re: BUS: Land > stuff" yesterday, when I moved to (-2, 2). I have received everyone else's > messages, though. Anyone else having the same thing happen? > > -twg
DIS: Email Weirdness (Reprise)
Just wanted to mention that I haven't actually received copies of any of my own messages, to any forum, today - the most recent one was "Re: BUS: Land stuff" yesterday, when I moved to (-2, 2). I have received everyone else's messages, though. Anyone else having the same thing happen? -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
:) Thought you might be pulling our legs, but also realized it hadn't come up lately so I thought I'd mention the Bad Form thing for people in general. If I were really concerned, and it was a time issue, I might call the second CFJ before you delivered the first answer. The judgements would come out around the same time (so we'd have a neutral answer on the table), then we could moot yours if the two judgements disagreed. But you're right that if time wasn't an issue (and I guess resolving this win isn't super-pressing, it doesn't cascade into other game uncertainties), then just mooting yours would be cleaner in the long run -G. On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh, I mostly just did that because I thought it was mildly amusing. I'm not > actually expecting it to get through without the required number of > objections > (or, indeed, for the CFJ to go 4 days without Murphy assigning it to a > different > judge). > > Though if I _did_ do that, would it not be more efficient to enter the > judgement > into Moot instead of initiating a new CFJ? What is the reason for preferring a > second CFJ? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > I object, and will note that it really is considered Bad Form/Sportsmanship > > around here to judge something with this degree of self-interest. If you > > assign it to yourself, I'd be tempted to call a second CFJ with the same > > statement, with the note "please ignore twg's precedent, e should have > > recused emself". > > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris. > > > I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to > > > assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't > > > paying attention... > > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 PM, D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the > > > > > value of > > > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > > > > > to > > > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that > > > > > N=1. > > > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > > > > > N=1. > > > > > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ > > > > is TRUE. > > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > > > besides 1. > > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > > > number other than 1. > > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > > > judged TRUE. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fun!! > > > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > > > interested): > > > > > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > > > > > announcements, > > > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > > > R1728: > > > > > > > > > > 1. A person (the
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
Oh, I mostly just did that because I thought it was mildly amusing. I'm not actually expecting it to get through without the required number of objections (or, indeed, for the CFJ to go 4 days without Murphy assigning it to a different judge). Though if I _did_ do that, would it not be more efficient to enter the judgement into Moot instead of initiating a new CFJ? What is the reason for preferring a second CFJ? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I object, and will note that it really is considered Bad Form/Sportsmanship > around here to judge something with this degree of self-interest. If you > assign it to yourself, I'd be tempted to call a second CFJ with the same > statement, with the note "please ignore twg's precedent, e should have > recused emself". > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris. > > I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to > > assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying > > attention... > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 PM, D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > > > :-D > > > From Aris: > > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > > > > of > > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > > > > > > My response: > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ is > > > TRUE. > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > > besides 1. > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > > number other than 1. > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > > judged TRUE. > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > > > > > Fun!! > > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > > interested): > > > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > > > > announcements, > > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > > R1728: > > > > > > > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > > > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure > > > > the > > > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the > > > > value of > > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e > > > > refers to > > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that > > > > N=1. > > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the > > > > "default" > > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > > synonymous with
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
I also object On Thu, Sep 13, 2018, 14:39 Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris. > > I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to > assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying > attention... > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 PM, D Margaux > wrote: > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ > is TRUE. > > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > besides 1. > > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > number other than 1. > > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > judged TRUE. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > > > Fun!! > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > interested): > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > announcements, > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > R1728: > > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice > attempt, > > > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, > myself > > > > and twg. > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the > Game, > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining > on this > > > > > > > > > > > > parade. > > > > -D Margaux > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > From: D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > > > To: Agora Business agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it > seems > > > > only fair to warn
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of questions for the judge to consider: 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature, if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the clear statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous, because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did specify everything (in an obfuscated way). I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). Some detail responses: > In particular, as Aris [sic] emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be "unambiguously" clear. > it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" > person objected I agree, it was a clear statement that you *would* not, but it isn't a clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" legally needs to imply. -G. On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > :-D > > From Aris: > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > > > > My response: > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ is > TRUE. > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > besides 1. > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > number other than 1. > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > judged TRUE. > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > Fun!! > > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > interested): > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent announcements, > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > clear about intent announcements: > > > > R1728: > >1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
Arg! Sorry :-) On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:39 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris. > > I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to > assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying > attention... > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 PM, D Margaux > wrote: > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ > is TRUE. > > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > besides 1. > > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > number other than 1. > > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > judged TRUE. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > > > Fun!! > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > interested): > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > announcements, > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > R1728: > > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice > attempt, > > > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, > myself > > > > and twg. > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the > Game, > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining > on this > > > > > > > > > > > > parade. > > > > -D Margaux > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > > From: D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > > > To: Agora Business agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it > seems > > > > only fair to
DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
:-D >From Aris: > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > My response: The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ is TRUE. In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number besides 1. Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any number other than 1. In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be judged TRUE. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Fun!! > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > interested): > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > Arguments: > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent announcements, > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > clear about intent announcements: > > R1728: >1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > at most fourteen days earlier. > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > announcement in question is "clear". > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice attempt, > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, myself > > and twg. > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the Game, > > and > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining on this > > parade. > > > > -D Margaux > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: D Margaux > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > To: Agora Business > > > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it seems > > only fair to warn everyone--I plan to issue 2 blot unforgiveable fines this > > upcoming Thursday for any weekly/monthly reports that are due today and are > > not submitted by end of day on this upcoming Wednesday. If there are more > > than 3 such late reports, then I plan to invoke R2532 to have my zombie > > Point eir Finger at the additional people, since I can't issue SJ to more > > than three people. I suspect that use of my zombie could be controversial, > > but Finger Pointing isn't listed as an excluded action by R2532, so I think > > it is permitted. Let me know if any one disagrees with that, though, and I > > might not do it that way. Also, maybe somewhat less controversially, I > > note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke R2465 on Thursday > > with regard to any players
