Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Aris Merchant]

Oh, my, this is getting interesting. We'll just have to see how the judge
rules.

-Aris

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:41 PM Ned Strange 
wrote:

> So I do just want to respond to that.
> [quote]The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person[/quote]
> The term "officer" is defined by rule 1006 as "the holder of an
> office". The holder of an office is a person who holds it at a
> particular time. Rule 1006 also states that "If the holder of an
> office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant". That rule therefore
> compels the reading that the holders of offices are (usually) players.
> Players are people. Therefore, while not all people are officers,
> officers are all people. There is no distinction between an officer
> and a person who holds an office at a particular time.
> [quote]o only promulgated the regulation in eir persona as Notary,
> which has now passed to you[/quote]
> But the Promulgator of a Regulation (the word Promulgator is
> inconsistently capitalised btw, add that to your bugfixes) is
> explicitly defined as an officer. An officer is someone who holds an
> office at a particular time.
> [quote]I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> ones[/quote]
> Indeed it does. These official powers and responsibilities are already
> entangled by the rules in the most obvious way possible. The
> punishments for missing a deadline are the same as the punishments for
> personal crimes like breaking a contract. If President Trump's
> Executive Orders are found unconstitutional, he is not getting thrown
> into jail or being found civilly liable in his own right. However,
> that _is_ the Agoran way of doing things. An office is not some
> separate persona, but merely a set of powers and responsibilities laid
> on a player for a temporary period.
> [quote] In general, we have assumed that a responsibility ascribed to
> an officer changes hands with the office, and this case could call
> that into dispute[/quote]
> An office is a set of responsibilities superimposed upon a player's
> existing set. Once a player leaves an office, they no longer have said
> responsibilities. But that does not mean that the player entering an
> office is the same _officer_ as the player who left it.
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > Arguments (partly quoted from above):
> >
> > The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
> > case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> > therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
> > regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> > entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> > ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
> > exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
> > power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
> > at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
> > ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
> > could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
> > cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
> > recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
> > defined.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I favor this one.
> >>
> >> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
> >> to myself without  3 objections.
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> >>
> >>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
> >>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
> >>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
> >>>
> >>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
> >>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
> >>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
> >>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
> >>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
> >>> regulations.
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
> >>>  wrote:
> >>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a
> person. In
> >>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated
> the
> >>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> >>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
> >>> >
> >>> > -Aris
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange <
> edwardostra...@gmail.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> Do other people believe my 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Ned Strange]

So I do just want to respond to that.
[quote]The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person[/quote]
The term "officer" is defined by rule 1006 as "the holder of an
office". The holder of an office is a person who holds it at a
particular time. Rule 1006 also states that "If the holder of an
office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant". That rule therefore
compels the reading that the holders of offices are (usually) players.
Players are people. Therefore, while not all people are officers,
officers are all people. There is no distinction between an officer
and a person who holds an office at a particular time.
[quote]o only promulgated the regulation in eir persona as Notary,
which has now passed to you[/quote]
But the Promulgator of a Regulation (the word Promulgator is
inconsistently capitalised btw, add that to your bugfixes) is
explicitly defined as an officer. An officer is someone who holds an
office at a particular time.
[quote]I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
ones[/quote]
Indeed it does. These official powers and responsibilities are already
entangled by the rules in the most obvious way possible. The
punishments for missing a deadline are the same as the punishments for
personal crimes like breaking a contract. If President Trump's
Executive Orders are found unconstitutional, he is not getting thrown
into jail or being found civilly liable in his own right. However,
that _is_ the Agoran way of doing things. An office is not some
separate persona, but merely a set of powers and responsibilities laid
on a player for a temporary period.
[quote] In general, we have assumed that a responsibility ascribed to
an officer changes hands with the office, and this case could call
that into dispute[/quote]
An office is a set of responsibilities superimposed upon a player's
existing set. Once a player leaves an office, they no longer have said
responsibilities. But that does not mean that the player entering an
office is the same _officer_ as the player who left it.


On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:32 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Arguments (partly quoted from above):
>
> The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
> case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
> regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
> regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
> entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
> ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
> exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
> power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
> at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
> ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
> could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
> cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
> recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
> defined.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I favor this one.
>>
>> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
>> to myself without  3 objections.
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>>
>>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
>>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
>>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
>>>
>>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
>>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
>>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
>>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
>>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
>>> regulations.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
>>>  wrote:
>>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. 
>>> > In
>>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
>>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
>>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
>>> >
>>> > -Aris
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange 
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
>>> >> > promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to, 
>>> >> > so I
>>> >> > believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[Aris Merchant]

Arguments (partly quoted from above):

The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
defined.

-Aris

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I favor this one.
>
> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
> to myself without  3 objections.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>
>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
>>
>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
>> regulations.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In
>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
>> >> > promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to, so 
>> >> > I
>> >> > believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> >  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > Regulation 1.2
>> >> >> > Contract Sustenance Exemptions
>> >> >> > Parent rule(s): 2526 ("Sustenance Payments", Power 2.4)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments,
>> >> >> > until the date specified:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > History:
>> >> >> > Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 16 November 2017
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our honorable new Notary is reminded that e may want to repeal this,
>> >> >> and also to start publishing eir report soon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Aris
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>