DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
I sincerely apologize for the tardiness of CFJ 3866. Somehow I never even saw that it was assigned to me (if I ever did, I've completely forgotten). It's entirely my fault for not paying close enough attention to the lists. If I'm still the judge (which I think I am, but the Arbitor might have recused me in a message I missed I suppose), I'll have a decision out within 24 hours. I'm very sorry. -Aris On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 3:01 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) > Sun 26 Jul 2020 > > DEADLINES (details below) > --- > 3866 Assigned to ArisOVERDUE Thu 23 Jul 2020 21:19:10 > 3869 Assigned to ArisDue Sat 01 Aug 2020 18:16:22 > > > INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE > --- > 3862 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 3863 Murphy > 3864 G. > 3862 R. Lee > 3867 Jason > 3868 ATMunn > 3869 Aris > > (Occasional) > 3797 Falsifian > 3807 Warrigal > 3815 Cuddlebeam > > > OPEN CASES > --- > 3869 Assigned to Aris [Due Sat 01 Aug 2020 18:16:22] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3869 > A player CAN send a message to agora-business by some method. > > 3866 Assigned to Aris [Due Thu 23 Jul 2020 21:19:10] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3866 > More than one Contracoli Contract exists right now. > > > RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES > --- > 3868 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Fri 17 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3868 > The above-quoted message created an Agoran proposal. > > 3867 Judged TRUE by Jason [Tue 21 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3867 > In the above message, I broke a pledge. > > 3865 Judged FALSE by Jason [Fri 10 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3865 > I am no longer a party to Trigon's 6th secret contract. > > 3864 Judged TRUE by G. [Sun 05 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3864 > Welcome Package Patch's sole function is not to minimally rectify > a bug. > > 3863 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 12 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3863 > Aris MAY Call Destruction Down Upon the contract Amusing Test > Case. > > 3862 Judged IRRELEVANT by R. Lee [Fri 17 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?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. > > 3861 Judged FALSE by Jason [Fri 03 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3861 > The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s behalf was > unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or 18 > Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory. > > 3860 Judged FALSE by ATMunn [Fri 03 Jul 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3860 > G. cast a valid ballot on Proposal 8458. > > 3859 Judged FALSE by G. [Mon 29 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3859 > It would be possible to resolve an Agoran decision by announcement > even if conditions 1-4 in R208 are not satisfied. > > 3858 Judged TRUE by grok [Sun 28 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3858 > An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on > objections. > > 3857 Judged DISMISS by R. Lee [Tue 30 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3857 > If the person who sent the above message is a player, e cast a > vote on Proposal 8442 in that message. > > 3856 Judged FALSE by Aris [Tue 30 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3856 > Any attempt to exile a player or claim a welcome package fails > under omd's contract. > > 3854 Judged DISMISS by Murphy [Sun 28 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3854 > If a player dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e > is still a person. > > 3851 Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus [Fri 26 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3851 > R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > evidence. > > 3850 Judged TRUE by G. [Fri 26 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3850 > The Plunder Partnership as it existed on June 15, 2020 could be > joined by other players. > > 3849 Judged TRUE by G. [Fri 26 Jun 2020] > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3849 > A contract which has no explicit mechanism for joining may still > be joined by other parties
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Glitteral
On 7/26/2020 8:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/26/20 1:21 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/26/2020 7:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-official wrote: Glitter prices at end of week: Red 16 coins Violet 9 coins Orange 12 coins Indigo 21 coins Green 15 coins Platinum 15 coins Emerald 16 coins Lime 18 coins Cyan 11 coins White 18 coins Blue 11 coins blacK 10 coins Magenta 9 coins grAy 8 coins Ultraviolet 11 coins Transparent 15 coins Shouldn't the value of Transparent glitter have gone down after I got my Transparent ribbon? or am I just misunderstanding something? It did, but it went back up because of Jason's Banner. Oh, right. Got it. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3867 Judged TRUE by Jason [Ribbon]
On 7/26/20 8:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/26/20 8:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 7/26/20 8:04 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> On 7/26/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3867 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 3867 === In the above message, I broke a pledge. == Caller:ATMunn Judge: Jason Judgement: TRUE == >>> >>> I award myself a Blue ribbon for the above judgment. I have earned it >>> within the last week, so I still qualify for it, and it has been just >>> over 7 days since I last had it. >>> >> This fails because you were already awarded glitter for it. >> > > Why so? > > Rule 2438: > >> While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon: >> >> - If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 >> days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of >> Ribbon. >> >> - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or >> the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came >> to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so >> awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, e CAN, by >> announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. > > > There's no Glitter restriction on the "CAN award" clause. > Oh, that's true, which is a small hole. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3867 Judged TRUE by Jason [Ribbon]
On 7/26/20 8:11 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/26/20 8:04 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> On 7/26/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3867 >>> (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). >>> >>> === CFJ 3867 === >>> >>> In the above message, I broke a pledge. >>> >>> == >>> >>> Caller:ATMunn >>> >>> Judge: Jason >>> Judgement: TRUE >>> >>> == >> >> I award myself a Blue ribbon for the above judgment. I have earned it >> within the last week, so I still qualify for it, and it has been just >> over 7 days since I last had it. >> > This fails because you were already awarded glitter for it. > Why so? Rule 2438: > While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon: > > - If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 > days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of > Ribbon. > > - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or > the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came > to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so > awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, e CAN, by > announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. There's no Glitter restriction on the "CAN award" clause. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3867 Judged TRUE by Jason [Ribbon]
On 7/26/20 8:04 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 7/26/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3867 >> (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). >> >> === CFJ 3867 === >> >> In the above message, I broke a pledge. >> >> == >> >> Caller:ATMunn >> >> Judge: Jason >> Judgement: TRUE >> >> == > > > I award myself a Blue ribbon for the above judgment. I have earned it > within the last week, so I still qualify for it, and it has been just > over 7 days since I last had it. > This fails because you were already awarded glitter for it. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Glitteral
On 7/26/20 1:21 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/26/2020 7:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-official > wrote: >> Glitter prices at end of week: >> >> Red 16 coins Violet 9 coins >> Orange 12 coins Indigo 21 coins >> Green 15 coins Platinum 15 coins >> Emerald 16 coins Lime 18 coins >> Cyan 11 coins White 18 coins >> Blue 11 coins blacK 10 coins >> Magenta 9 coins grAy 8 coins >> Ultraviolet 11 coins Transparent 15 coins > > Shouldn't the value of Transparent glitter have gone down after I got my > Transparent ribbon? or am I just misunderstanding something? > It did, but it went back up because of Jason's Banner. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: (attn Treasuror, Promotor) Okay let's get this over with
On 2020-07-26 11:45, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: I perform Collection for the CCCA's sole Legislative Card (i.e. transfer it to myself, pay it to earn a Pendant, and keep said Pendant). I pay one Pendant to flip "Simpler ribbon switches" to Pending. Alright, I messed up on this. Back in June you transferred all your cards to this contract. Unfortunately, I missed this transaction and it has long since self-ratified that all your original cards are still in your possession. As a consequence, I'm not sure if the rest of the actions in this message work. -- Trigon I LOVE SPAGHETTI transfer Jason one coin nch was here I hereby don't... trust... the dragon... don't... trust... the dragon... Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
Re: DIS: [Diplonomic] Retreat Rules question
at 9:40 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: Yes, it couldn't retreat to a province occupied by a dislodging unit or a unit that it couldn't have moved to. And here I was planning to submit orders to do so, and argue tomorrow that they should be legal according to Rule 22. Oh well.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Petition to the ADoP
at 10:50 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to flip the interest of Coopor to (its current value + 'Justice'). I intend, without objection, to flip the interest of Coopor to (its current value + 'Efficiency'). I intend, without objection, to flip the interest of Coopor to (its current value + 'Legislation'). I intend, without objection, to flip the interest of Coopor to (its current value + 'Participation'). I intend, without objection, to flip the interest of Coopor to (its current value + 'Economy’). I'm not sure you can intend to perform a conditional like that.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Glitteral
On 7/26/2020 7:37 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-official wrote: Glitter prices at end of week: Red 16 coinsViolet9 coins Orange 12 coinsIndigo 21 coins Green15 coinsPlatinum 15 coins Emerald 16 coinsLime 18 coins Cyan 11 coinsWhite18 coins Blue 11 coinsblacK10 coins Magenta 9 coinsgrAy 8 coins Ultraviolet 11 coinsTransparent 15 coins Shouldn't the value of Transparent glitter have gone down after I got my Transparent ribbon? or am I just misunderstanding something? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
Re: DIS: [Diplonomic] Retreat Rules question
On 7/26/20 12:45 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 7/26/2020 9:40 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On 7/26/20 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> >>> H. Publius, >>> >>> Another diplonomic rules question! >>> >>> The original Diplomacy Rules say: A unit may not retreat to the province from where the dislodging unit came or to an "embattled" province, meaning one left vacant by a bounce/standoff that turn. >>> (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Rules) >>> >>> Current Rule 22 says: 22. A dislodged unit must retreat to an adjacent province. Retreats can’t be convoyed or supported. If two or more units are ordered to retreat to the same province, they all must be disbanded. If a country fails to order a retreat when necessary, the unit is disbanded. >>> >>> Reading this on its own, you could retreat anywhere adjacent (even to >>> occupied territories!) Obviously that's not true so there are limits not >>> explicitly spelled out in R22. Do those limits apply to retreating to >>> "where the dislodging unit came from" or to "embattled but empty" >>> provinces under the current R22, as per the original Dip rules? >> >> Yes, it couldn't retreat to a province occupied by a dislodging unit or >> a unit that it couldn't have moved to. >> > > But 'embattled but empty' can be retreated to? > > Since the unit couldn't have moved there, no. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: [Diplonomic] Retreat Rules question
On 7/26/2020 9:40 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 7/26/20 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> >> H. Publius, >> >> Another diplonomic rules question! >> >> The original Diplomacy Rules say: >>> A unit may not retreat to the province from where the dislodging unit >>> came or to an "embattled" province, meaning one left vacant by a >>> bounce/standoff that turn. >> (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Rules) >> >> Current Rule 22 says: >>> 22. A dislodged unit must retreat to an adjacent province. Retreats >>> can’t be convoyed or supported. If two or more units are ordered to >>> retreat to the same province, they all must be disbanded. If a country >>> fails to order a retreat when necessary, the unit is disbanded. >> >> Reading this on its own, you could retreat anywhere adjacent (even to >> occupied territories!) Obviously that's not true so there are limits not >> explicitly spelled out in R22. Do those limits apply to retreating to >> "where the dislodging unit came from" or to "embattled but empty" >> provinces under the current R22, as per the original Dip rules? > > Yes, it couldn't retreat to a province occupied by a dislodging unit or > a unit that it couldn't have moved to. > But 'embattled but empty' can be retreated to?
Re: DIS: [Diplonomic] Retreat Rules question
On 7/26/20 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > H. Publius, > > Another diplonomic rules question! > > The original Diplomacy Rules say: >> A unit may not retreat to the province from where the dislodging unit >> came or to an "embattled" province, meaning one left vacant by a >> bounce/standoff that turn. > (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Rules) > > Current Rule 22 says: >> 22. A dislodged unit must retreat to an adjacent province. Retreats >> can’t be convoyed or supported. If two or more units are ordered to >> retreat to the same province, they all must be disbanded. If a country >> fails to order a retreat when necessary, the unit is disbanded. > > Reading this on its own, you could retreat anywhere adjacent (even to > occupied territories!) Obviously that's not true so there are limits not > explicitly spelled out in R22. Do those limits apply to retreating to > "where the dislodging unit came from" or to "embattled but empty" > provinces under the current R22, as per the original Dip rules? Yes, it couldn't retreat to a province occupied by a dislodging unit or a unit that it couldn't have moved to. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: [Diplonomic] Retreat Rules question
H. Publius, Another diplonomic rules question! The original Diplomacy Rules say: > A unit may not retreat to the province from where the dislodging unit > came or to an "embattled" province, meaning one left vacant by a > bounce/standoff that turn. (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Diplomacy/Rules) Current Rule 22 says: > 22. A dislodged unit must retreat to an adjacent province. Retreats > can’t be convoyed or supported. If two or more units are ordered to > retreat to the same province, they all must be disbanded. If a country > fails to order a retreat when necessary, the unit is disbanded. Reading this on its own, you could retreat anywhere adjacent (even to occupied territories!) Obviously that's not true so there are limits not explicitly spelled out in R22. Do those limits apply to retreating to "where the dislodging unit came from" or to "embattled but empty" provinces under the current R22, as per the original Dip rules? Thanks! -G.
