date:20190618


I just wanted to make an easy to break pledge :(

Jason Cobb

On 6/18/19 9:20 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

On Jun 18, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Rebecca  wrote:


There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
clause, that being 3538.

For anyone else interested, the archived CFJ is available at 
>. Nice 
catch, too - I’d be tempted to infer from it that attempting to enforce a pledge not to 
participate, through the rules, is also ineffective, even if the rule issues preventing the 
Referee from acting were fixed.

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Owen Jacobson

On Jun 18, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Rebecca  wrote:

> There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
> clause, that being 3538.

For anyone else interested, the archived CFJ is available at 
>. 
Nice catch, too - I’d be tempted to infer from it that attempting to enforce a 
pledge not to participate, through the rules, is also ineffective, even if the 
rule issues preventing the Referee from acting were fixed.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
clause, that being 3538. To quote it
"I agree that the pledge, if effective, would be a severe enough

restriction on V.J. Rada's participation in the Fora as to run afoul
of Rule 478 (as even though e is not strictly required to send
messages to agora-discussion to participate, we have a strong
expectation that players will).  Although Rule 478 uses the word
"shall", that doesn't necessarily mean "SHALL", and both game custom
and the best interests of the game strongly favor giving the clause
teeth.  When it comes to attempts to prohibit participation through
the legal system, it should be interpreted as overriding such
prohibitions altogether, not merely criminalizing their creation."


On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It doesn’t actually require all capitals. It says "These definitions are
> used when rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance in
> determining
> the ordinary-language meaning of a term when a rule includes a term
> otherwise." So we're allowed (and arguably encouraged) to interpret it as
> establishing criminal liability, but we don't have to do so.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:56 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > I don't think you can interpret as establishing criminal liability,
> > since it says "shall" and Rule 2152 ("Mother, may I?") specifically
> > requires all capitals ("SHALL").
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/18/19 8:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to
> public
> > fora for the next 24 hours.
> > > Does this pledge operate?
> > >
> > > Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
> > > Fora
> > >
> > >Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> > >any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
> shall
> > >be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any
> person
> > >create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor
> some
> > >players' fora access over others.
> > >
> > >[…]
> > >
> > > Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)
> > > Pledges
> > >
> > >If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
> (or
> > >refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
> pledge
> > >within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> > >Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> > >otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> > >pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> > >
> > >If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
> > >SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
> > >appropriate fine.
> > >
> > > Depending on whether “no Player shall be prohibited” is a restriction
> on
> > acting (in which case I shall, ha ha, point the finger), a restriction on
> > interpreting or applying the rules (in which case I believe I shall call
> > for judgement), or a non-binding resolution of some variety (in which
> case,
> > shall we strengthen it?), I believe it’s possible that a pledge not to
> post
> > can only be enforced through clicked tongues and private judgement.
> > >
> > > -o
> > >
> >
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Aris Merchant

It doesn’t actually require all capitals. It says "These definitions are
used when rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance in determining
the ordinary-language meaning of a term when a rule includes a term
otherwise." So we're allowed (and arguably encouraged) to interpret it as
establishing criminal liability, but we don't have to do so.

-Aris

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:56 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I don't think you can interpret as establishing criminal liability,
> since it says "shall" and Rule 2152 ("Mother, may I?") specifically
> requires all capitals ("SHALL").
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/18/19 8:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> >> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public
> fora for the next 24 hours.
> > Does this pledge operate?
> >
> > Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
> > Fora
> >
> >Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> >any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
> >be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person
> >create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some
> >players' fora access over others.
> >
> >[…]
> >
> > Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)
> > Pledges
> >
> >If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
> >refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
> >within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> >Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> >otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> >pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> >
> >If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
> >SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
> >appropriate fine.
> >
> > Depending on whether “no Player shall be prohibited” is a restriction on
> acting (in which case I shall, ha ha, point the finger), a restriction on
> interpreting or applying the rules (in which case I believe I shall call
> for judgement), or a non-binding resolution of some variety (in which case,
> shall we strengthen it?), I believe it’s possible that a pledge not to post
> can only be enforced through clicked tongues and private judgement.
> >
> > -o
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

I don't think you can interpret as establishing criminal liability, 
since it says "shall" and Rule 2152 ("Mother, may I?") specifically 
requires all capitals ("SHALL").


Jason Cobb

On 6/18/19 8:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb  wrote:


I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora 
for the next 24 hours.

Does this pledge operate?

Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
Fora

   Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
   any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
   be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person
   create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some
   players' fora access over others.

   […]

Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)
Pledges

   If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
   refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
   within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
   Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
   otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
   pledge explicitly states otherwise.

   If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
   SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
   appropriate fine.

Depending on whether “no Player shall be prohibited” is a restriction on acting 
(in which case I shall, ha ha, point the finger), a restriction on interpreting 
or applying the rules (in which case I believe I shall call for judgement), or 
a non-binding resolution of some variety (in which case, shall we strengthen 
it?), I believe it’s possible that a pledge not to post can only be enforced 
through clicked tongues and private judgement.

-o

DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Owen Jacobson

On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora 
> for the next 24 hours.

Does this pledge operate?

Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
Fora

  Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
  any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
  be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person
  create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some
  players' fora access over others.

  […]

Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)
Pledges

  If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
  refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
  within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
  Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
  otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
  pledge explicitly states otherwise.

  If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
  SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
  appropriate fine.

Depending on whether “no Player shall be prohibited” is a restriction on acting 
(in which case I shall, ha ha, point the finger), a restriction on interpreting 
or applying the rules (in which case I believe I shall call for judgement), or 
a non-binding resolution of some variety (in which case, shall we strengthen 
it?), I believe it’s possible that a pledge not to post can only be enforced 
through clicked tongues and private judgement.

-o

signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

2019-06-18 Thread James Cook

Sorry, just saw the other thread. Seems R. Lee is now in agreement
that the CHoJ is broken.

On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 00:38, James Cook  wrote:
>
> Wait, I'm confused. omd's revised judgement says "so it seems that
> imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is impossible after all.", and I
> think this is because omd realized that the new "only using the
> methods" clause means attempts to impose the CHoJ actually don't work.
> Or did I get something backward?
>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 12:25, Rebecca  wrote:
> >
> > As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose the
> > CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
> >
> > > I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so.
> > >
> > > Referee’s Weekly Report
> > > Date of This Report: 2019-06-18
> > > Date of Last Report: 2019-06-12
> > >
> > > BLOT HOLDINGS
> > > ===
> > > This section self-ratifies.
> > >
> > > BlotsPlayer
> > > ---
> > >8Corona
> > >7twg
> > >3V.J. Rada
> > >3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >   1L.
> > >   1Murphy
> > >
> > > BlotsFugitive
> > > -
> > >   4Kenyon
> > >
> > > RECENT CHANGES
> > > ==
> > > This section does not self-ratify.
> > >
> > > [No recent changes because, evidently, players CANNOT expunge blots nor
> > > impose the CHoJ]
> > >
> > > RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS
> > > =
> > > This section does not self-ratify.
> > >
> > > 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a
> > > Promotor's weekly report.  RESULT:  Finger pointing was well taken,
> > > and Aris was fined 1 blot--except this was INEFFECTIVE because CHoJ is
> > > broken.
> > >
> > > 2019-06-13 Falsifian pointed eir finger at D. Margaux and Murphy for
> > > Abetting Heresy. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and a fine of 3
> > > blots on D. Margaux and 1 blot on Murphy was attempted and failed because
> > > CHoJ is broken.
> > >
> > > 2019-06-16 Falsifian pointed eir finger at emself for Class 0
> > > Oathbreaking. RESULT: Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the
> > > CHoJ is broken.
> > >
> > > 2019-06-19 Jason Cobb pointed eir finger at Falsifian for Making eir Eyes
> > > Bleed. RESULT; Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the CHoJ is
> > > broken.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

2019-06-18 Thread James Cook

Wait, I'm confused. omd's revised judgement says "so it seems that
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is impossible after all.", and I
think this is because omd realized that the new "only using the
methods" clause means attempts to impose the CHoJ actually don't work.
Or did I get something backward?

On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 12:25, Rebecca  wrote:
>
> As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose the
> CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
>
> > I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so.
> >
> > Referee’s Weekly Report
> > Date of This Report: 2019-06-18
> > Date of Last Report: 2019-06-12
> >
> > BLOT HOLDINGS
> > ===
> > This section self-ratifies.
> >
> > BlotsPlayer
> > ---
> >8Corona
> >7twg
> >3V.J. Rada
> >3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >   1L.
> >   1Murphy
> >
> > BlotsFugitive
> > -
> >   4Kenyon
> >
> > RECENT CHANGES
> > ==
> > This section does not self-ratify.
> >
> > [No recent changes because, evidently, players CANNOT expunge blots nor
> > impose the CHoJ]
> >
> > RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS
> > =
> > This section does not self-ratify.
> >
> > 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a
> > Promotor's weekly report.  RESULT:  Finger pointing was well taken,
> > and Aris was fined 1 blot--except this was INEFFECTIVE because CHoJ is
> > broken.
> >
> > 2019-06-13 Falsifian pointed eir finger at D. Margaux and Murphy for
> > Abetting Heresy. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and a fine of 3
> > blots on D. Margaux and 1 blot on Murphy was attempted and failed because
> > CHoJ is broken.
> >
> > 2019-06-16 Falsifian pointed eir finger at emself for Class 0
> > Oathbreaking. RESULT: Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the
> > CHoJ is broken.
> >
> > 2019-06-19 Jason Cobb pointed eir finger at Falsifian for Making eir Eyes
> > Bleed. RESULT; Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the CHoJ is
> > broken.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that
> CHOJ is broken.
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: omd 
> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM
> Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
> To: 
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> > > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
> > > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
> > > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
> > > was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule
> > > 2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
> > > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly
> > > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion
> > > cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did
> > > not exist at the time of that CFJ,  and appears to abrogate the
> > > precedent it set.
> >
> > Whoops.  I self-file a motion to reconsider.
>
> Revised judgement:
>
> I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed
> postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in
> 2014).
>
> Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
> precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to
> higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
> impossible after all.
>
> I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
> situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
> specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.
>
> I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
> --
> D. Margaux
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup

Instead of this:

> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.

I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:

> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement 
> impose Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game.

Under the original wording it is ambiguous. Could have been read to say that SJ 
could be imposed on a person-who-plays-by-announcement.

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> Probably a good idea.
> 
> I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal.
> 
> 
> I submit the following proposal:
> 
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.1)
> 
> Author: Jason Cobb
> 
> Adoption Index: 1.7
> 
> Text:
> 
> {
> 
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> 
> Replace the text
> 
>>The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>>of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
>>Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>>proceeding.
> 
> with the text
> 
>>The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
>>When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. If e
>>does not specify the number of Blots in the fine, the attempt to
>>impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
>>imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
>>any official proceeding.
> 
> }
> 
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/18/19 7:27 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
 On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>> 
>>> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
>>> 
>>> Author: Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>> Adoption Index: 1.7
>>> 
>>> Text:
>>> 
>>> {
>>> 
>>> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>>> 
>>> Replace the text
>>> 
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
>>> with the text
>>> 
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. Summary
Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in
response to any official proceeding.
>>> }
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup

2019-06-18 Thread Aris Merchant

You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.

-Aris

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Adoption Index: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>
> Replace the text
>
> >The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> >of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> >Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> >proceeding.
> with the text
>
> >The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> >Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
> >When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. Summary
> >Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in
> >response to any official proceeding.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

2019-06-18 Thread omd

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:23 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Recent habits, especially for self-filed motions, are "I self-motion
> to reconsider, and submit the entirely same judgement except for a
> couple clarifying paragraphs" (like I did for 3733) or trivial
> mistakes ("I wrote this long argument for FALSE that still holds, but
> accidentally typed TRUE instead of FALSE at the end, so it's all the
> same except s/TRUE/FALSE.")  Under those circumstances, its much more
> of a chore for later reading to have two long versions of nearly the
> same thing, and preserving the trivial mistake adds nothing.

Yeah, I agree regarding those circumstances.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:14 PM omd  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:11 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > Hi omd,
> >
> > When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments
> > entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for
> > precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers
> > are objecting to minor portions, or the whole thing, and keeping both
> > gets quite confusing).  Your revised judgement below seems to depend
> > on some of that long original judgement though (references to CFJ 3425
> > eg.) and I'd hate the detailed work to get lost - are there parts that
> > should be kept?
>
> Hmm... I guess you could keep everything in the original before "I'll
> honor the precedent here."
>
> Though I'll venture that, as a player, I think I'd prefer a policy of
> letting the case log serve as a full historical record, rather than
> dropping information even if it's outdated.  If you're worried about
> judgements being mistaken for precedent, why not just add a note at
> the top saying that the judgement was reconsidered/overruled/etc.?

Recent habits, especially for self-filed motions, are "I self-motion
to reconsider, and submit the entirely same judgement except for a
couple clarifying paragraphs" (like I did for 3733) or trivial
mistakes ("I wrote this long argument for FALSE that still holds, but
accidentally typed TRUE instead of FALSE at the end, so it's all the
same except s/TRUE/FALSE.")  Under those circumstances, its much more
of a chore for later reading to have two long versions of nearly the
same thing, and preserving the trivial mistake adds nothing.  Some
judges have even implicitly required in-place editing to make a
record, e.g. "I re-deliver the below judgement (with a long judgement
carat-quoted) except with FALSE replacing TRUE in the final sentence."
 For long-term posterity, reading the entire thing quoted in carats is
a pain so I make those edits in the original when the instructions
have a "rule change" level of clarity.  And the judges themselves,
often, are indicating (implicitly or explicitly) that the reconsidered
judgements are intended as "replacement" not an "in addition to".

So yeah, for the record I'm allowing myself to "curate" clear edits
like that rather than cutting and pasting verbatim - hopefully not too
controversially?

It's much rarer to have two sets of arguments, especially self-filed,
that build on each other.  But if they do I'm happy to include the
full thing so I'll do that here regardless (include the complete thing
- you're right actual substantive editing after the fact isn't good,
so all or nothing - "all" is appropriate here!).

Of course much of the current practice is built around the lack of the
"permanent and curated" historical record for the past couple years -
maybe if I can keep the record up habits will change so each judgement
builds on what was entered in the case log others will expect that and
change judgement style to match - we'll see...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

2019-06-18 Thread omd

On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:11 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Hi omd,
>
> When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments
> entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for
> precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers
> are objecting to minor portions, or the whole thing, and keeping both
> gets quite confusing).  Your revised judgement below seems to depend
> on some of that long original judgement though (references to CFJ 3425
> eg.) and I'd hate the detailed work to get lost - are there parts that
> should be kept?

Hmm... I guess you could keep everything in the original before "I'll
honor the precedent here."

Though I'll venture that, as a player, I think I'd prefer a policy of
letting the case log serve as a full historical record, rather than
dropping information even if it's outdated.  If you're worried about
judgements being mistaken for precedent, why not just add a note at
the top saying that the judgement was reconsidered/overruled/etc.?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Secondly, yes, there are. Specifically, a SHALL or a SHALL NOT doesn’t
> limit the *performance* of an action, they limit the *permissibility* of an
> action. This interpretation means that there is no superfluous or
> ineffective text in R2125.

snap!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:35 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> > In eir first judgement,
> > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> >
> >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >> permit its performance;
> >
> > include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or
> > SHALL NOT (e.g. "forbid" or "require").  Therefore, things that are
> > governed solely by a SHALL or SHALL NOT (e.g. "SHALL act in accordance
> > with that contract") are not regulated at all.  (I was trying to
> > remember precedents but couldn't - though I'm guessing someone must have
> > opined on it at some point?)
>
> Is it clear what an "action" is?  Plausibly, there is no stable distinction 
> between "action" and "inaction."  That is because every "inaction" can be 
> rephrased as an "action" (i.e., the act of omitting from doing something).  
> If that's true, then a SHALL would "limit" the "action" of 
> "omitting-from-doing-something" and a SHALL NOT would "limit" the "action" of 
> "omitting-from-not-doing-something."
>
> That would make SHALLs and SHALL NOTs regulated. Are the reasons why that 
> logic does not hold?

Not in my book - the counterargument that occurred to me was "if we
can 'limit or permit' to count as regulation, we can also combine
those to 'limit what we permit' and have that count as regulation too
(if "permit" is MAY, to "limit what we permit" is to "limit a MAY",
which is done by imposing a MAY NOT, which is defined as being
identical to a SHALL NOT).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-18 Thread Aris Merchant

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:34 AM D. Margaux  wrote:

>
>
> > On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> > In eir first judgement,
> > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> >
> >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >> permit its performance;
> >
> > include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or
> > SHALL NOT (e.g. "forbid" or "require").  Therefore, things that are
> > governed solely by a SHALL or SHALL NOT (e.g. "SHALL act in accordance
> > with that contract") are not regulated at all.  (I was trying to
> > remember precedents but couldn't - though I'm guessing someone must have
> > opined on it at some point?)
>
> Is it clear what an "action" is?  Plausibly, there is no stable
> distinction between "action" and "inaction."  That is because every
> "inaction" can be rephrased as an "action" (i.e., the act of omitting from
> doing something).  If that's true, then a SHALL would "limit" the "action"
> of "omitting-from-doing-something" and a SHALL NOT would "limit" the
> "action" of "omitting-from-not-doing-something."
>
> That would make SHALLs and SHALL NOTs regulated. Are the reasons why that
> logic does not hold?



First off, I’m not really sure how the action/inaction thing challenges
G.’s explanation, though I agree with your logic.

Secondly, yes, there are. Specifically, a SHALL or a SHALL NOT doesn’t
limit the *performance* of an action, they limit the *permissibility* of an
action. This interpretation means that there is no superfluous or
ineffective text in R2125.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> In eir first judgement,
> Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> 
>> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>> permit its performance;
> 
> include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or
> SHALL NOT (e.g. "forbid" or "require").  Therefore, things that are
> governed solely by a SHALL or SHALL NOT (e.g. "SHALL act in accordance
> with that contract") are not regulated at all.  (I was trying to
> remember precedents but couldn't - though I'm guessing someone must have
> opined on it at some point?)

Is it clear what an "action" is?  Plausibly, there is no stable distinction 
between "action" and "inaction."  That is because every "inaction" can be 
rephrased as an "action" (i.e., the act of omitting from doing something).  If 
that's true, then a SHALL would "limit" the "action" of 
"omitting-from-doing-something" and a SHALL NOT would "limit" the "action" of 
"omitting-from-not-doing-something."

That would make SHALLs and SHALL NOTs regulated. Are the reasons why that logic 
does not hold?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

I know I said I liked that reasoning before, but I've done some thinking
about some possible counter-points:

I'll point out that Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") has higher power
than Rule 1742 ("Contracts"), which might suggest that this bar on such
an interpretation should take precedence over Rule 1742's attempt to
enforce requirements that contradict with the Rules.

I also note that the CFJ is not directly on whether or not a person
party to such a contract would violate the Rules. I agree that, if a
person is party to the hypothetical contract, for them to breath would
violate this wording, making it a Class 2 crime. The CFJ is,
effectively, whether or not the regulated actions rule "reaches into the
contract", as G. put it.

So, is there any textual or precedent basis for asserting whether or not
the Rules "reach into the contract"?

Jason Cobb

On 6/18/19 7:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:

The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to
adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me
persuasive arguments to the contrary.

On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
punish breach-of-contract. The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
breathing.

In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.

So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing, while the
rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for violating
R1742. That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for something
unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished
for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this clause -
it's your fault for signing up."

On 6/17/2019 11:30 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the contract can
say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will not _enforce_
criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules wouldn't proscribe
breathing.
Jason Cobb

On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.

Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, enable, or permit
its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does not limit its
performance.

The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a dictionary to
prove such things.

To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which might in itself
constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".

On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either

- Breathing is a regulated action, or

- The contract does not prohibit breathing.

Jason Cobb

On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.

I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.

The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an unregulated
action.

By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion that the
contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 2152.

There really is no way out of this, is there?

On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, assuming a
player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN perform an action that the rules state e
SHALL NOT perform.

From the dictionary I get:

Proscribe -
forbid, especially by law.
synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto,
make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
"gambling was proscribed"

Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL
NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report


Well, not that anything will actually happen :P

Jason Cobb

On 6/18/19 12:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

I point my finger at D. Margaux for the Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed.

Jason Cobb

On 6/18/19 8:25 AM, Rebecca wrote:
As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN 
impose the

CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux  
wrote:



I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so.

Referee’s Weekly Report
Date of This Report: 2019-06-18
Date of Last Report: 2019-06-12

BLOT HOLDINGS
===
This section self-ratifies.

Blots    Player
-    --
    8    Corona
    7    twg
    3    V.J. Rada
    3    Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
   1    L.
   1    Murphy

Blots    Fugitive
-    
   4    Kenyon

RECENT CHANGES
==
This section does not self-ratify.

[No recent changes because, evidently, players CANNOT expunge blots nor
impose the CHoJ]

RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS
=
This section does not self-ratify.

2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a
Promotor's weekly report.  RESULT:  Finger pointing was well taken,
and Aris was fined 1 blot--except this was INEFFECTIVE because CHoJ is
broken.

2019-06-13 Falsifian pointed eir finger at D. Margaux and Murphy for
Abetting Heresy. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and a fine 
of 3
blots on D. Margaux and 1 blot on Murphy was attempted and failed 
because

CHoJ is broken.

2019-06-16 Falsifian pointed eir finger at emself for Class 0
Oathbreaking. RESULT: Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because 
the

CHoJ is broken.

2019-06-19 Jason Cobb pointed eir finger at Falsifian for Making eir 
Eyes
Bleed. RESULT; Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the 
CHoJ is

broken.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

Well, if as I understand it, the chain of JUSTICE is (intended to be) as
follows:

Commit a crime -> Someone points eir finger -> Investigator investigates
-> Investigator finds guilty (assume so) -> Investigator imposes the
COLD HAND OF JUSTICE, which is the done by applying a fine.

Everything up to the CHoJ works fine (as far as we know) and has clearly
correct results in this instance. Yes, I committed the crime, yes
someone pointed eir finger, yes the Investigator (would) investigate,
and yes the Investigator (would) find me guilty.

The CHoJ part (or the part of assigning a fine) is the only part that
could (maybe) lead to a PARADOXICAL, and it seems, by CFJ 3736 that
nobody can actually do that, so any statement about CHoJ with a CAN in
it is automatically FALSE.

I could be missing something, and if anyone can think of a statement
that gets around CFJ 3736, I would love to hear it ;).

Jason Cobb

On 6/18/19 8:13 AM, D. Margaux wrote:

As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
PARADOXICAL though?

On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:

Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!

I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.

I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.

[Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't mean to
overload the people who have to deal with them.]

I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The investigator of the
Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of
Oathbreaking."

Evidence:

{

Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):

If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.

Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):

When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
violation, within the following guidelines:
- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.

}

Arguments:

{

Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which I called this
CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under penalty of a Class 0 Crime. Thus,
under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478
("Vigilante Justice", not quoted here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ
precedent) impose the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp (me).

I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime must be
positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is a thing that
can happen.

Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the crime (in
Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the investigator CAN do so
by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot) and a maximum of 0 (Blots).
This is a mathematical impossibility. There is no valid number of blots that
the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules assert that e CAN.

At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution should be.

I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be
INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my
argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.

That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.

The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:

I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules require
a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether or not the
rules of math take precedence over the Rules.

Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the described action
are successful." This does not describe applying a fine here, as there is no valid number of
Blots that I could be fined that would be permitted under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so
would NOT be successful.

Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think that
the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that should be
taken into account.

Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules state
that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to do. That
sounds like a paradox to me :).

}

Jason Cobb

On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora
for the next 24 hours.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

There's actually two separate issues raised.  In eir first judgement,
Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:

>  An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>  permit its performance;

include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or
SHALL NOT (e.g. "forbid" or "require").  Therefore, things that are
governed solely by a SHALL or SHALL NOT (e.g. "SHALL act in accordance
with that contract") are not regulated at all.  (I was trying to
remember precedents but couldn't - though I'm guessing someone must have
opined on it at some point?)

A logical problem with that argument is that here in R2125:

>  The Rules SHALL NOT be
>  interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.

The most likely synonym for "proscribe" is "prohibit" or "make illegal"
so that rule or interpretation has some self-consistency issues with
potentially weird
results.

If you accept that SHALL implies "regulated", then the argument you cite
applies.

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:49 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
> The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I
> plan to adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone
> gives me persuasive arguments to the contrary.
>
> > On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
> > punish breach-of-contract.  The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
> > breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
> > breathing.
> >
> > In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
> >  Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
> >  accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
> >  by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
> >  between the contract and the rules.
> >
> > So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing, while the
> > rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for violating
> > R1742.  That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for something
> > unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished
> > for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this clause -
> > it's your fault for signing up."
> >
> >> On 6/17/2019 11:30 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the 
> >> contract can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will 
> >> not _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules 
> >> wouldn't proscribe breathing.
> >> Jason Cobb
> >>> On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>> Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, 
> >>> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract 
> >>> does not limit its performance.
> >>>
> >>> The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a 
> >>> dictionary to prove such things.
> >>>
> >>> To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which 
> >>> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
> >>>
>  On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>  You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). 
>  Either
> 
>  - Breathing is a regulated action, or
> 
>  - The contract does not prohibit breathing.
> 
>  Jason Cobb
> 
> > On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
> >
> > I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
> >
> > The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an 
> > unregulated action.
> >
> > By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion 
> > that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking 
> > rule 2152.
> >
> > There really is no way out of this, is there?
> >
> >> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, 
> >>> assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN 
> >>> perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
> >>
> >>  From the dictionary I get:
> >>
> >> Proscribe -
> >> forbid, especially by law.
> >> synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, 
> >> veto,
> >> make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
> >> "gambling was proscribed"
> >>
> >> Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for 
> >> SHALL
> >> NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to 
> >> me.
> >
> >>>

DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that
CHOJ is broken.

-- Forwarded message -
From: omd 
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
To: 

On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
> > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
> > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
> > was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule
> > 2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
> > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly
> > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion
> > cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did
> > not exist at the time of that CFJ,  and appears to abrogate the
> > precedent it set.
>
> Whoops.  I self-file a motion to reconsider.

Revised judgement:

I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed
postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in
2014).

Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to
higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
impossible after all.

I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.

I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
-- 
D. Margaux

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose the
CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so.
>
> Referee’s Weekly Report
> Date of This Report: 2019-06-18
> Date of Last Report: 2019-06-12
>
> BLOT HOLDINGS
> ===
> This section self-ratifies.
>
> BlotsPlayer
> ---
>8Corona
>7twg
>3V.J. Rada
>3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   1L.
>   1Murphy
>
> BlotsFugitive
> -
>   4Kenyon
>
> RECENT CHANGES
> ==
> This section does not self-ratify.
>
> [No recent changes because, evidently, players CANNOT expunge blots nor
> impose the CHoJ]
>
> RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS
> =
> This section does not self-ratify.
>
> 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a
> Promotor's weekly report.  RESULT:  Finger pointing was well taken,
> and Aris was fined 1 blot--except this was INEFFECTIVE because CHoJ is
> broken.
>
> 2019-06-13 Falsifian pointed eir finger at D. Margaux and Murphy for
> Abetting Heresy. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and a fine of 3
> blots on D. Margaux and 1 blot on Murphy was attempted and failed because
> CHoJ is broken.
>
> 2019-06-16 Falsifian pointed eir finger at emself for Class 0
> Oathbreaking. RESULT: Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the
> CHoJ is broken.
>
> 2019-06-19 Jason Cobb pointed eir finger at Falsifian for Making eir Eyes
> Bleed. RESULT; Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the CHoJ is
> broken.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

Fines can be levied, surely, per the revised version of CFJ 3736, which
says they CAN, but not by announcement

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:13 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
> anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
> PARADOXICAL though?
>
> > On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> > Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
> >
> > I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
> >
> > I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
> >
> >
> > [Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't
> mean to overload the people who have to deal with them.]
> >
> > I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The
> investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine
> on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking."
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
> >
> >  If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
> >  refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
> >  within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> >  Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> >  otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> >  pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> >
> >
> > Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):
> >
> >  When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
> >  of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
> >  perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
> >  violation, within the following guidelines:
> >- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N
> crime,
> >then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
> >
> > }
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which
> I called this CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under
> penalty of a Class 0 Crime. Thus, under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class
> 0 Crime of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice", not
> quoted here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ precedent) impose the
> Cold Hand of Justice on the perp (me).
> >
> > I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime
> must be positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is
> a thing that can happen.
> >
> > Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the
> crime (in Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the
> investigator CAN do so by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot)
> and a maximum of 0 (Blots). This is a mathematical impossibility. There is
> no valid number of blots that the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules
> assert that e CAN.
> >
> > At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution
> should be.
> >
> > I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be
> INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my
> argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.
> >
> > That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
> >
> > The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:
> >
> > I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules
> require a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether
> or not the rules of math take precedence over the Rules.
> >
> > Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the
> described action are successful." This does not describe applying a fine
> here, as there is no valid number of Blots that I could be fined that would
> be permitted under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so would NOT be
> successful.
> >
> > Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think
> that the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that
> should be taken into account.
> >
> > Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules
> state that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to
> do. That sounds like a paradox to me :).
> >
> > }
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> >> On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public
> fora for the next 24 hours.
> >>
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for 
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be 
PARADOXICAL though?

> On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
> 
> I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
> 
> I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
> 
> 
> [Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't mean 
> to overload the people who have to deal with them.]
> 
> I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The investigator 
> of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb 
> for the Crime of Oathbreaking."
> 
> Evidence:
> 
> {
> 
> Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
> 
>  If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
>  refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
>  within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
>  Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
>  otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
>  pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> 
> 
> Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):
> 
>  When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
>  of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
>  perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
>  violation, within the following guidelines:
>- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
>then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
> 
> }
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> {
> 
> Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which I 
> called this CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under penalty 
> of a Class 0 Crime. Thus, under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class 0 Crime 
> of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice", not quoted 
> here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ precedent) impose the Cold 
> Hand of Justice on the perp (me).
> 
> I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime must 
> be positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is a thing 
> that can happen.
> 
> Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the crime 
> (in Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the investigator CAN 
> do so by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot) and a maximum of 0 
> (Blots). This is a mathematical impossibility. There is no valid number of 
> blots that the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules assert that e CAN.
> 
> At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution should be.
> 
> I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be 
> INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my 
> argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.
> 
> That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
> 
> The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:
> 
> I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules 
> require a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether or 
> not the rules of math take precedence over the Rules.
> 
> Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the described 
> action are successful." This does not describe applying a fine here, as there 
> is no valid number of Blots that I could be fined that would be permitted 
> under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so would NOT be successful.
> 
> Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think that 
> the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that should 
> be taken into account.
> 
> Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules state 
> that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to do. That 
> sounds like a paradox to me :).
> 
> }
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora 
>> for the next 24 hours.
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction

> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber  wrote:
> 
> If this is accepted, {
> 
> { I cfj the following:
> 
> "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> 
> Argument in favour :
> 
> Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> The highest bidder wins the auction.
> Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> }
> 
> AND
> 
> { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was 
> evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by Trigon, 
> instead of ignoring it.}
> 
> }

This attempted finger pointing is subject to an inextricable conditional. Does 
that mean that it is INEFFECTIVE per Rule 2517? That Rule defines certain 
conditions as extricable or inextricable, but doesn't seem to say that that 
distinction matters for purposes of EFFECTIVENESS.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to 
adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me 
persuasive arguments to the contrary.  

> On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
> punish breach-of-contract.  The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
> breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
> breathing.
> 
> In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
>  Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>  accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>  by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>  between the contract and the rules.
> 
> So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing, while the
> rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for violating
> R1742.  That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for something
> unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished
> for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this clause -
> it's your fault for signing up."
> 
>> On 6/17/2019 11:30 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the contract 
>> can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will not 
>> _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules wouldn't 
>> proscribe breathing.
>> Jason Cobb
>>> On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, 
>>> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does 
>>> not limit its performance.
>>> 
>>> The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a 
>>> dictionary to prove such things.
>>> 
>>> To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which 
>>> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
>>> 
 On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
 You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). 
 Either
 
 - Breathing is a regulated action, or
 
 - The contract does not prohibit breathing.
 
 Jason Cobb
 
> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
> 
> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
> 
> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an 
> unregulated action.
> 
> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion 
> that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 
> 2152.
> 
> There really is no way out of this, is there?
> 
>> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, 
>>> assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN 
>>> perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
>> 
>>  From the dictionary I get:
>> 
>> Proscribe -
>> forbid, especially by law.
>> synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto,
>> make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
>> "gambling was proscribed"
>> 
>> Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL
>> NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.
> 
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

Oh it was rejected. Never mind!

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:26 PM Rebecca  wrote:

> Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is
> that still in the ruleset?
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:
>
> > > 8058*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Medal of Honour Auctions  V.J. Rada
> > AGAINST
> > > 8059*  G. 1.0  honour is its own reward  G.
> > PRESENT
> > > 8060*  V.J. Rada  1.8  Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada
> > FOR
> > > 8061+  Aris   1.0  Free ProposalsAris
> > PRESENT
> > > 8062*  Trigon 3.0  The End of the World, Again   Trigon
> > PRESENT
> > > 8063*  V.J. Rada  2.0  IAR Writs Repeal  V.J. Rada
> > PRESENT
> > > 8064*  G. 1.0  Land Grants   G.
> > FOR
> > > 8065*  twg2.0  No undead courts  twg
> > FOR
> >
> >
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3739 Assigned to Falsifian

Gratuitous argument. Even if "deputisation" or "temporary deputisation" are
totally distinct categories, the Cyan Ribbon category uses the word
"deputises" rather than "deputisation". A person who engages in "temporary
deputisation", even if distinct from "deputisation" still engages in the
_verb_ "deputising".

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:51 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> This is CFJ 3739.  I assign it to Falsifian.
>
> ===  CFJ 3739  ===
>
>A person earns a Cyan Ribbon when e temporarily deputises for an
>office.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:G.
>
> Judge: Falsifian
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by G.: 16 Jun 2019 18:34:55
> Assigned to Falsifian:[now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
>  From Rule 2438 (Ribbons):
>Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, that person earns
>a Cyan Ribbon.
>
> The question is whether "temporary deputisation" is a sub-category of
> "deputisation" (deserving of a Ribbon) or if the qualifier makes it
> something totally separate and not ribbon-earning.
>
>  From Rule 2160 (Deputisation):
>5. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is
>   doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation
>[...]
>When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
>holder of that office, unless the action being performed would
>already install someone into that office, and/or unless the
>deputisiation is temporary.
>
> The "deputisation or by temporary deputisation" implies they're
> distinct things and not sub-categories, but the "unless the
> deputisation is temporary" implies one is a sub-category of the other
> (these are the only usages in the whole Ruleset of the term
> "temporary".
>
> It makes some kinda sense that a ribbon reward is reserved for when
> you actually take on an office, but I don't have a prejudice
> otherwise: FWIW when I wrote the "temporary" rule I didn't think about
> ribbons at all so there was no particular intent.
>
> ==
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is
that still in the ruleset?

On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:

> > 8058*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Medal of Honour Auctions  V.J. Rada
> AGAINST
> > 8059*  G. 1.0  honour is its own reward  G.
> PRESENT
> > 8060*  V.J. Rada  1.8  Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada
> FOR
> > 8061+  Aris   1.0  Free ProposalsAris
> PRESENT
> > 8062*  Trigon 3.0  The End of the World, Again   Trigon
> PRESENT
> > 8063*  V.J. Rada  2.0  IAR Writs Repeal  V.J. Rada
> PRESENT
> > 8064*  G. 1.0  Land Grants   G.
> FOR
> > 8065*  twg2.0  No undead courts  twg
> FOR
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory