Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Oops, thanks, updated. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could > > be doubt about this. > > > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE > > = > > Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped > FALSE and TRUE at these points. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Thanks, noted.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
> a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> >
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> > The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> > D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> > Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> > There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> > D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > weekly reports:
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> > omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> > D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> > Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> > Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> > > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> > the
> > > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> > good of
> > > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> > cause any
> > > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of
> > the
> > > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> > though,
> > > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> > consider and
> > > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> > >
> > > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> > > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> > > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> > D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> > ratify.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> > D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
> > Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> >
> > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > ==
> >
> > It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> > have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
> >
> > I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> > by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> > Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
> > of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> > INEFFECTIVE if...").
> >
> > Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
> >
> > The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
> > the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could be doubt about this. 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE = Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped FALSE and TRUE at these points. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.
>
> I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> the next couple of days.
>
>
>
> This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
>
> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
>
> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> more than 0 blots."
>
> 1. Arguments
>
>
> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> everything here.
>
> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> =
>
> 2019-05-20 01:25
>
> The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> blots.
>
> 2019-05-20 20:32
>
> D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> 2019-05-21 10:20
>
> D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> weekly reports:
>
> {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> value.}
>
> {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> 2019-05-25 22:02
>
> omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> information in the above reports.
>
> 2019-05-25 22:54
>
> D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> pointed".
>
> 2019-05-26 22:43
>
> Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
>
> > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> the
> > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of
> the
> > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
> > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
> > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> >
> > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
>
> 2019-05-26 22:50
>
> D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> ratify.
>
> 2019-05-27 14:11
>
> D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
>
> 2019-05-27 19:58
>
> Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
>
> 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> ==
>
> It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
>
> I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
> of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> INEFFECTIVE if...").
>
> Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
>
> The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
> the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing
> the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is
> copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However,
> Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information
> in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition
> 1 does not
DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.
I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.
This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
Spaaace Rules has its default value.
There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
the Spaaace Rules. }
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
ratify.
2019-05-27 14:11
D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
2019-05-27 19:58
Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
==
It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
INEFFECTIVE if...").
Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing
the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is
copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However,
Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information
in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition
1 does not trigger.
Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531:
The officer reports were false at the time they were published. For
example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that many
players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long since
self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims no
Spaceships exist.
Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent reports,
D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking
Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?
Thanks. I think that makes sense, and it certainly makes CFJ 3726 more interesting. I'll assume you're right unless I hear more about it. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 01:13, Aris Merchant wrote: > Y’all, I think you’re overthinking this. “authorize” isn’t necessarily a > synonym for “enable”. According to Google, the definition is “give official > permission for or approval to”. I think telling someone they’re required to > do something as part of their job counts as “authorization” to do it > according to the common language meaning of the word authorize. > > -Aris > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:05 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST > > implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what > > it might say: > > > > There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties > > except by imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT > > impose the Cold Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL > > way for the Referee to perform eir duties. > > > > A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir > > mandatory obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result > > runs contrary to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very > > creation of the Office of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory > > assume that office and discharge its responsibilities. Unless the Referee > > CAN impose the Cold Hand when warranted, then there is no way for a player > > to assume the office of Referee and discharge its duties as required by > > rule. > > > > MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could > > pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do > > that but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not > > make the pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a > > method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the > > first place). And that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions > > underlying the Rules, since the Rules presuppose that players may make > > pledges they can’t satisfy. > > > > The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the > > Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be > > performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no > > *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one > > described above. So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST > > probably does not imply CAN... > > > > > On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > > > In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't > > > know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. > > > > > > R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. > > > > > > R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I > > > don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > >
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
Maybe, but I’d guess not. Assigning a number to something is inherently a by announcement action. If I say “this is boat number 1”, then it’s boat #1 by my definition. All Rule 2141 does is to say the Rulekeepor’s definitions are the ones officially recognized by Agora. -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:09 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > No method? There might be a Rule 2125 problem here. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, > and > > doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any > > number. You’re right that this gives em some power over conflict > > resolution. However, as a matter of convention, e only assigns the next > > number in line. The rule is left unspecified so that there isn’t a > problem > > if e assigns the wrong number by mistake and also because defining which > > number e has to use would require the rule to write out the algorithm to > be > > used. The benefit gained by assigning the wrong number is small enough > that > > the Rulekeepor can be trusted not to annoy everyone by breaking the > > convention. Make sense? > > > > -Aris > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me > if > >> this is has an obvious answer. > >> > >> Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask > >> because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict > resolution, > >> and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in > the > >> rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the > >> application of the rules. > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > > >
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
No method? There might be a Rule 2125 problem here. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any number. You’re right that this gives em some power over conflict resolution. However, as a matter of convention, e only assigns the next number in line. The rule is left unspecified so that there isn’t a problem if e assigns the wrong number by mistake and also because defining which number e has to use would require the rule to write out the algorithm to be used. The benefit gained by assigning the wrong number is small enough that the Rulekeepor can be trusted not to annoy everyone by breaking the convention. Make sense? -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Hello everyone, I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if this is has an obvious answer. Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution, and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the application of the rules. Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that something. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote: I make a COE for this Treasuror's report. I posted two public messages announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora. If I had been wise I would have made the second one conditional upon the first not succeeding. I was not wise, so I think I should only have 56 coins. CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow. I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ Arguments: I believe this is FALSE. Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails. The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple messages. Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent. [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451 [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452
Re: DIS: The Ritual
Interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, then.
Thanks for the help!
Jason Cobb
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 10:51 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is indeed a tad confusing. The Ritual was explicitly designed as an
> expirement to test this very point. Either everyone is a violator or (more
> likely) no one in particular is. Either way, we’re supposed to feel a
> collective responsibility to make sure that it is performed.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > [This continues my newbie questions.]
> >
> > Here it goes: who exactly can be punished for violating Rule 2596 ("The
> > Ritual")?
> > The problematic phrasing is: "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once
> in
> > every Agoran week."
> >
> > Clearly this Rule wishes to specify that such an inaction is a violation.
> > However, unlike any other instance of "shall", "must", "shall be", or
> "must
> > be" in the Rules (at a cursory glance), this instance has no clear Entity
> > that can violate the rule. Note that the issue is not "MUST be", but
> that,
> > even in context, there is no specific Entity or document that can violate
> > the rule.
> >
> > I see a few possible interpretations: that Agora itself would violate the
> > rule, that each individual Player would violate the rule, or perhaps the
> > Rule simply fails to identify a violator at all.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>
Re: DIS: The Ritual
This is indeed a tad confusing. The Ritual was explicitly designed as an
expirement to test this very point. Either everyone is a violator or (more
likely) no one in particular is. Either way, we’re supposed to feel a
collective responsibility to make sure that it is performed.
-Aris
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> [This continues my newbie questions.]
>
> Here it goes: who exactly can be punished for violating Rule 2596 ("The
> Ritual")?
> The problematic phrasing is: "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in
> every Agoran week."
>
> Clearly this Rule wishes to specify that such an inaction is a violation.
> However, unlike any other instance of "shall", "must", "shall be", or "must
> be" in the Rules (at a cursory glance), this instance has no clear Entity
> that can violate the rule. Note that the issue is not "MUST be", but that,
> even in context, there is no specific Entity or document that can violate
> the rule.
>
> I see a few possible interpretations: that Agora itself would violate the
> rule, that each individual Player would violate the rule, or perhaps the
> Rule simply fails to identify a violator at all.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Jason Cobb
>
DIS: The Ritual
[This continues my newbie questions.]
Here it goes: who exactly can be punished for violating Rule 2596 ("The
Ritual")?
The problematic phrasing is: "The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in
every Agoran week."
Clearly this Rule wishes to specify that such an inaction is a violation.
However, unlike any other instance of "shall", "must", "shall be", or "must
be" in the Rules (at a cursory glance), this instance has no clear Entity
that can violate the rule. Note that the issue is not "MUST be", but that,
even in context, there is no specific Entity or document that can violate
the rule.
I see a few possible interpretations: that Agora itself would violate the
rule, that each individual Player would violate the rule, or perhaps the
Rule simply fails to identify a violator at all.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
Wow. Thank you all for the quick replies. I really was not expecting it that quickly. That all makes sense, thank you. Jason Cobb On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Was that really a deliberate perk? It seems incredibly trivial, as > > perks go. I was under the impression the old rule was repealed as > > part of a simplification effort; lots of stuff was being repealed > > around then. > > I think it was an accidental perk, i.e. because there were plenty of > other perks around at the time, creating a new one didn't seem like a > problem (although the simplification effort was the actual reason, not > the perk in of itself). > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > Was that really a deliberate perk? It seems incredibly trivial, as > perks go. I was under the impression the old rule was repealed as > part of a simplification effort; lots of stuff was being repealed > around then. I think it was an accidental perk, i.e. because there were plenty of other perks around at the time, creating a new one didn't seem like a problem (although the simplification effort was the actual reason, not the perk in of itself). -- ais523
Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?
Y’all, I think you’re overthinking this. “authorize” isn’t necessarily a synonym for “enable”. According to Google, the definition is “give official permission for or approval to”. I think telling someone they’re required to do something as part of their job counts as “authorization” to do it according to the common language meaning of the word authorize. -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:05 AM D. Margaux wrote: > Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST > implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what > it might say: > > There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties > except by imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT > impose the Cold Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL > way for the Referee to perform eir duties. > > A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir > mandatory obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result > runs contrary to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very > creation of the Office of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory > assume that office and discharge its responsibilities. Unless the Referee > CAN impose the Cold Hand when warranted, then there is no way for a player > to assume the office of Referee and discharge its duties as required by > rule. > > MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could > pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do > that but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not > make the pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a > method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the > first place). And that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions > underlying the Rules, since the Rules presuppose that players may make > pledges they can’t satisfy. > > The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the > Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be > performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no > *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one > described above. So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST > probably does not imply CAN... > > > On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't > > know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. > > > > R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. > > > > R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I > > don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so. > > > > Am I missing something? >
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 6:01 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 20:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if > > this is has an obvious answer. > > > > Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask > > because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict > resolution, > > and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in > the > > rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the > > application of the rules. > > There used to be a rule enforcing a particular ID number allocation > algorithm. It got repealed, though, so right now it's fully up to the > Rulekeepor. > > I think that at the time, we were in an "office perk era" where > officers were paid via giving them advantages like that one, because > there wasn't a functioning economy, so the discretion didn't seem out > of place. Some of the perk economy still survives, and I don't think > it's doing any real damage. > > -- > ais523 > Was that really a deliberate perk? It seems incredibly trivial, as perks go. I was under the impression the old rule was repealed as part of a simplification effort; lots of stuff was being repealed around then. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
Rulekeepor reporting in. As AIS523 says, there is no perscribed method of ID assignment. I assign each rule the ID number one greater than the one enacted before it. Theoretically, I *could* influence the way rules are interpreted in a very minor way, but I don't see any purpose. The general attitude at the moment is that we should let the officers handle whatever they need to and if they become corrupted, we just remove them from office with minimal and easily reprable harm to the gamestate. On 6/1/19 7:01 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 20:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if this is has an obvious answer. Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution, and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the application of the rules. There used to be a rule enforcing a particular ID number allocation algorithm. It got repealed, though, so right now it's fully up to the Rulekeepor. I think that at the time, we were in an "office perk era" where officers were paid via giving them advantages like that one, because there wasn't a functioning economy, so the discretion didn't seem out of place. Some of the perk economy still survives, and I don't think it's doing any real damage. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any number. You’re right that this gives em some power over conflict resolution. However, as a matter of convention, e only assigns the next number in line. The rule is left unspecified so that there isn’t a problem if e assigns the wrong number by mistake and also because defining which number e has to use would require the rule to write out the algorithm to be used. The benefit gained by assigning the wrong number is small enough that the Rulekeepor can be trusted not to annoy everyone by breaking the convention. Make sense? -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if > this is has an obvious answer. > > Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask > because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution, > and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the > rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the > application of the rules. > > Jason Cobb >
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 20:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if > this is has an obvious answer. > > Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask > because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution, > and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the > rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the > application of the rules. There used to be a rule enforcing a particular ID number allocation algorithm. It got repealed, though, so right now it's fully up to the Rulekeepor. I think that at the time, we were in an "office perk era" where officers were paid via giving them advantages like that one, because there wasn't a functioning economy, so the discretion didn't seem out of place. Some of the perk economy still survives, and I don't think it's doing any real damage. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time > they were published, Looking at judge G.'s "BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE" at the bottom of the judgement, it looks like there actually was a ratification of a document explicitly talking about the past, not just about the current state.
DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
Hello everyone, I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if this is has an obvious answer. Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution, and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the application of the rules. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177
> Here are the hypotheticals and my answers: These all make sense to me, though I haven't dug too deeply. I noticed a few things while researching whether ratification can in some sense "change the past". I'll post separately about that, although it looks like the CFJ won't depend on it. > (Incidentally, are the rules clear about when voting strength is determined? > At the time of end of voting period or time of assessment?) I was thinking about this the other day. I think it's time of assessment, based on my interpretation below, though my interpretation could be wrong. * A player's voting strength is a legal fiction that varies over time, much like ownership or switch values. * Rule 955 describes how to calculate the outcome of a decision. The calculation depends on voting strength, so the result of the calculation depends on when you do it. * Rule 955 says "The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved". I think that means we should do the calculation at that time. I don't see anything to say the voting strength at the time the vote was cast plays. any role.
Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?
Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what it might say: There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties except by imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT impose the Cold Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL way for the Referee to perform eir duties. A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result runs contrary to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very creation of the Office of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory assume that office and discharge its responsibilities. Unless the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand when warranted, then there is no way for a player to assume the office of Referee and discharge its duties as required by rule. MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do that but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not make the pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the first place). And that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions underlying the Rules, since the Rules presuppose that players may make pledges they can’t satisfy. The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one described above. So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST probably does not imply CAN... > On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook wrote: > > In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't > know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. > > R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. > > R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I > don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so. > > Am I missing something?
