DIS: Re: OFF: [Diplonomic 2020] Daily Status of Play: Fall 1902 Part 2
I'd appreciate if everyone could put in votes on these proposals if they haven't already because that would possibly lessen the tracking load. I also still think that it might be a good time to start thinking about more substantive proposals. I don't see anything in the Diplonomic rules about voting against proposals. Are you saying that if at least half the players tell you they're voting against a proposal, you'll stop publishing it in these daily messages? -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3862 Assigned to R. Lee
I judge CFJ 3862 IRRELEVANT as it is overly hypothetical. On Fri., 17 Jul. 2020, 7:20 am Kerim Aydin via agora-official, < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3862. I assign it to R. Lee. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3862 > > === CFJ 3862 === > > Facts (for example, 2 + 2 = 4), for the purposes of Agoran play, > rely on some function of the collective Agoran opinion and not > necessarily some objective reality. For example, if enough Agorans > believe that 2 + 2 = 5 is true, it is then so for Agora. > > == > > Caller:Cuddlebeam > > Judge: R. Lee > > == > > History: > > Called by Cuddlebeam: 30 Jun 2020 09:41:12 > Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: 05 Jul 2020 18:22:54 > Publius recuses emself: 12 Jul 2020 14:33:38 > Assigned to R. Lee: [now] > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > I'm very convinced that nomic is entirely a perspectivist, subjective > game, but let's see how that holds up to Judgement. > > == > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge Shenanigans
On 2020-07-16 9:49 p.m., Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/16/20 5:47 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: On 2020-07-16 5:47 p.m., ATMunn via agora-business wrote: On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24 hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the pledge shall be a class 1 crime. I like tacos. CFJ: In the above message, I broke a pledge. Arguments: Though I did say the word I am forbidden to say due to the pledge, it was 1) not a public message and 2) not an action. So, FALSE would be logical. However, the pledge does say "in any context." Does that still make it binding, even outside of public forums? Gratuitous: CFJ 3737 may be relevant here. The judge found that if someone agreed to a contract stating parties SHALL NOT breathe, then breathing would be a regulated action just for those parties. So, maybe saying "tacos" is a regulated action just for you. (Whether or not saying "tacos" is a regulated action, I suspect it is at least an action, but I'm not sure.) We don't have the "SHALL NOT be interpreted" anymore, so I don't think whether it's a regulated action is particularly relevant. I think that was replaced with "A body of law does not proscribe any action which it does not regulate." I don't know whether the action being regulated or not matters. Maybe if it's regulated, that mean ATMunn's attempt to say the word "tacos" using the discussion list was unsuccessful, since the rules describe no method for saying things other than "publishing" via a public forum. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge Shenanigans
On 7/16/20 5:47 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On 2020-07-16 5:47 p.m., ATMunn via agora-business wrote: >> On 7/16/2020 1:43 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24 hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the pledge shall be a class 1 crime. >>> I like tacos. >>> >> CFJ: In the above message, I broke a pledge. >> >> Arguments: Though I did say the word I am forbidden to say due to the >> pledge, it was 1) not a public message and 2) not an action. So, FALSE >> would be logical. However, the pledge does say "in any context." Does >> that still make it binding, even outside of public forums? > Gratuitous: > > CFJ 3737 may be relevant here. The judge found that if someone agreed to > a contract stating parties SHALL NOT breathe, then breathing would be a > regulated action just for those parties. So, maybe saying "tacos" is a > regulated action just for you. > > (Whether or not saying "tacos" is a regulated action, I suspect it is at > least an action, but I'm not sure.) > We don't have the "SHALL NOT be interpreted" anymore, so I don't think whether it's a regulated action is particularly relevant. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On 7/16/2020 2:41 PM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Thu, 2020-07-16 at 14:29 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official > wrote: >> Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) >> Thu 16 Jul 2020 UTC > > COE: This omits the case I called about Diplonomic proposals being > misinterpreted as Agoran proposals. (Sorry for forgetting to signal it; > I'm still used to the old way of doing things.) > No worries I did mark it in my email somehow skipped over it just now. Coming up.
DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge Shenanigans
On 7/16/2020 1:42 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: I pledge to not say the word "tacos" in any context for the next 24 hours. The time window of this pledge is 24 hours and breaking the pledge shall be a class 1 crime. I like tacos. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
