Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE
On 3/25/24 18:10, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this >> standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the >> requirement for the "specification of the method" includes a requirement >> for the specification to be labelled as the "specification of the method". > Is there precedent for us requiring things to be labeled? The > disclaimers for No Faking don't need to be labeled as disclaimed, for > instance. > > I don't think it needs to be labeled, so I do think that's a potential > scam currently (that could be easily rectified by improving the > requirement, which we should do anyway). > If we had an action that required specifying two things, it'd have to be clear which is which, at least? But it's true that for by announcement actions we don't require a specific labeling if it's clear what the overall action is (e.g. "I initiate CFJ on X" rather than "I initiate a CFJ with statement X"). I think that's a justifiable reading, and given that I won't dispute it. (But I still think we should work on ratifying everything anyway, which I'll look into when I get a chance.) -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE
On 3/16/24 22:08, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > So, a potential point of disagreement here is what *exactly* this > standard is requiring. Importantly, I think it's unclear whether the > requirement for the "specification of the method" includes a requirement > for the specification to be labelled as the "specification of the method". Is there precedent for us requiring things to be labeled? The disclaimers for No Faking don't need to be labeled as disclaimed, for instance. I don't think it needs to be labeled, so I do think that's a potential scam currently (that could be easily rectified by improving the requirement, which we should do anyway). -- nix Arbitor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE
On 3/16/24 14:58, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > One quick thought to add: I suspect one or two people will want to > reconsider this. If they do, I strongly suggest they come up with > compelling arguments for why this was missed by every CFJ on Rule 105, > every Promotor, and every player in 10 years. It strikes me that the > person saying "everyone but me is wrong" needs a damn good argument for > how that could occur. To be clear I don't mean this as a slight at anyone, and I probably typed it a little loose and fast here. A better way to say it might be that "ten years of tradition is wrong" is an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary evidence for why that would occur, beyond a different interpretation of the text. -- nix
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 4072 Judged TRUE
On 3/16/24 14:55, nix via agora-business wrote: > Given that agoran tradition has suggested that this formulation works > for at least 4 years and perhaps more than a decade, that no previous > CFJ has raised any concerns about this (despite many CFJs scrutinizing > Rules 105 and 106), and that "by proposal" is established in at least > one other rule as a recognizable method, I judge this CFJ TRUE. One quick thought to add: I suspect one or two people will want to reconsider this. If they do, I strongly suggest they come up with compelling arguments for why this was missed by every CFJ on Rule 105, every Promotor, and every player in 10 years. It strikes me that the person saying "everyone but me is wrong" needs a damn good argument for how that could occur. -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on appointing a Distributor
On 8/25/23 15:24, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Aug 25, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> I CFJ: "It is generally POSSIBLE to alter the holder of the office of >> Distributor without objection." >> >> This arose in Agoran't, whose ruleset is still similar enough to Agora's >> that the same question is of interest in Agora. Note that this judgement >> will not set precedent (preceden't?) in Agoran't, though. (I leave it to >> someone else to raise the same CFJ there if they think it's worth >> questioning.) >> >> >> Rule 2575/3 (Power=3) >> The Distributor >> >> The Distributor is an imposed office whose holder is generally >> responsible for the management of the primary Agoran fora. The >> holder CANNOT be changed except without objection or by proposal. >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Distributor CANNOT >> deregister or be deregistered. >> >> >> >> Rule 2573 seems to anticipate that players might want to appoint a >> Distributor in one of two different ways: without objection, or by >> proposal. But, at least on a casual reading, it doesn't seem to actually >> define those methods - just prevent anything else. Proposals can already >> take effect as defined in other rules, of course, but there isn't (to my >> knowledge) any other rule purporting to allow the change of an >> officeholder without objection. >> >> So I guess the question is: Is this casual reading correct? Or does a >> statement "X CANNOT be done except by Y" necessarily imply that "X CAN >> be done by Y”? > Grat.: It is, of course, possible to change the distributor through RWO; > although I suspect that’s not the intent, you could read the “except > without objection” as a reference to that. > > Gaelan > That's not a method for the Distributor to be changed (by a person) without objection. That's a method to cause R1551 to change the Distributor (which R2575 purports to prohibit but cannot due to power). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on appointing a Distributor
> On Aug 25, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: > > I CFJ: "It is generally POSSIBLE to alter the holder of the office of > Distributor without objection." > > This arose in Agoran't, whose ruleset is still similar enough to Agora's > that the same question is of interest in Agora. Note that this judgement > will not set precedent (preceden't?) in Agoran't, though. (I leave it to > someone else to raise the same CFJ there if they think it's worth > questioning.) > > > Rule 2575/3 (Power=3) > The Distributor > > The Distributor is an imposed office whose holder is generally > responsible for the management of the primary Agoran fora. The > holder CANNOT be changed except without objection or by proposal. > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Distributor CANNOT > deregister or be deregistered. > > > > Rule 2573 seems to anticipate that players might want to appoint a > Distributor in one of two different ways: without objection, or by > proposal. But, at least on a casual reading, it doesn't seem to actually > define those methods - just prevent anything else. Proposals can already > take effect as defined in other rules, of course, but there isn't (to my > knowledge) any other rule purporting to allow the change of an > officeholder without objection. > > So I guess the question is: Is this casual reading correct? Or does a > statement "X CANNOT be done except by Y" necessarily imply that "X CAN > be done by Y”? Grat.: It is, of course, possible to change the distributor through RWO; although I suspect that’s not the intent, you could read the “except without objection” as a reference to that. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] the speaker thing
On 6/22/22 16:46, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > CFJ, barring snail: At least one person was appointed Speaker in the > quoted message. > > > Arguments: > > At question is whether this clause in Rule 103/29: >If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same >person for 90+ days, then any player CAN appoint another player to >the office with support. > means "if the present speaker has been in office for the last 90 days" or > if it means "if any speaker has*ever* held the office for 90 continuous > days". > > > Evidence: > > At least one Speaker who held the office continuously for 90+ days is in > this report: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09228.html I favor this CFJ. -- nix Herald, Registrar, Collector
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
G. wrote: On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule." CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least one amendment of a Rule." CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended at once during the time when it is/was a Rule." The final CFJ (CFJ 3965) comes down to whether (3) "this rule is repealed" succeeded after the amendments/failed amendements in (2) were complete? Seems like the final CFJ is slightly broken in its wording (perhaps intended to ask "has been amended at least once"), but pretty clearly true (it amended itself at least once, namely while removing ~> <~ delimited portions of rules). It also seems pretty clear that Rule 2658 repealed itself. Rule 105 (Rule Changes) says that an ambiguous rule change renders *that* rule change ineffective, but also that rule changes occur sequentially rather than simultaneously. Rule 2658 specified an order of a) (multiple changes) repeal other rules in order listed b) (multiple changes) amend rules containing ~> <~ in ascending numerical order c) repeal self and, whatever happened to the last few changes within b), change c) was always after all of those.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
On 6/12/2022 12:43 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 12:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in >> R2658. >> >> It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through, >> and I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed. > > The rule says "the following happen in order", referring to a list. If > any of them can't happen, does that mean that none of them happen? > > I think our normal precedent is to do as much as possible, but I'm not > sure why I think that, nor whether there's a rule about that, and > there's more than one reasonable interpretation. > That's a good point. I'll definitely address it on the next draft. My first sense is that, since R105 makes rule changes rigidly sequential and therefore severable, you have to follow the "text of the rules" as long as that text exists, so if you get to a step that fails, undoing the previous steps is re-amending the rules back to what they were, which *definitely* isn't rule 105 specified. This would be the default assumption, if the rule said explicitly "if one of these fails they all fail" it would specify what happens well enough to be atomic, perhaps? I've also *generally* felt uncomfortable with any conditionals that say "if any of these steps fail they all fail" because it's a conditional based on a future state (even if it can be evaluated hypothetically in the present without any doubt), which we've generally disallowed as being ambiguous, and if interpreted with rules-text level deference can lead to more paradoxes - but that's sort of a last-ditch "good of the game" argument. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
On Sun, 2022-06-12 at 12:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in > R2658. > > It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through, > and I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed. The rule says "the following happen in order", referring to a list. If any of them can't happen, does that mean that none of them happen? I think our normal precedent is to do as much as possible, but I'm not sure why I think that, nor whether there's a rule about that, and there's more than one reasonable interpretation. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Sets Repeal Cases
On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule." > > CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least > one amendment of a Rule." > > CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended at > once during the time when it is/was a Rule." > > > Rule 2658/0 (Power=3) > The Winds Die Down > > When the wind dies down, the following happen in order: > > * The following rules are repealed in order: R2620 "Cards & Sets", > R2623 "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", R2629 "Victory > Auctions", R2624 "Card Administration", R2622 "Pending > Proposals", R2651 "Proposal Recycling", and R2653 "Buying > Strength". > > * All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in > ascending numerical order by removing all text between and > including each "~>" and the first following "<~". > > * This rule is repealed. > > Draft arguments: Referring to the *'d list items in rule 2658/0 as (1), (2), (3): The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in R2658. It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through, and I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed. For what happens when (2) is performed: * All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in ascending numerical order by removing all text between and including each "~>" and the first following "<~". First of all, R2658 is the highest-numbered rule that contains the cited text (the ""s do not escape the text from being amended). Rule changes are always sequential, so all of the rule changes before R2658 are therefore amended successfully. Then, this rule self-amends itself to this: * All rules including the text "" are amended in ascending numerical order by removing all text between and including each "". I can't think of why this would fail up to this instant in the procedure, so I find CFJ 3966 TRUE and I find CFJ 3967 TRUE. So now we're midway through a rules-procedure and the procedure has been amended. The next question is whether the amended sentence would do anything. I find that it would not. On the principle that "all sets include the empty set", all rules include "". However, it's unclear *where* in the rule the blank text is "included", so the idea of "between" here is ambiguous, given the strict R105-standard of rules changes. So whether or not the above text attempts to go back and amend every rule (because every rule contains "" and we reevaluate the set of rules that the "All" refers to), or whether the determination of "all rules that include the text" was only performed once at the beginning of step (2) when the criteria involved ~> and <~, the net effect is the same. No rules were changed by (2) after R2658 was so-amended - either R2658 was the last amendment in the established set of rules, or an amendment for all rules containing "" was attempted that all failed due to ambiguity (the judgements don't depend on which of these is true). The final CFJ (CFJ 3965) comes down to whether (3) "this rule is repealed" succeeded after the amendments/failed amendements in (2) were complete? The question comes down to this - if a rules procedure is triggered by an event (like the Winds), but the procedure isn't finished and the rule is amended while the procedure is ongoing, does the process continue because it was started under the original trigger, or does it stop because the new rule contains a new process that hasn't been triggered yet? We're actually a bit mixed on that, in precedent/custom. Let's say: "When a player judges a CFJ, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL award em 15 coins in a timely manner by announcement" is amended by only changing the value of the award: "When a player judges a CFJ, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL award em 20 coins in a timely manner by announcement" In this case, if a player makes a judgement under the old rule, and the rule changes before the Arbitor acts, the player loses both. The old award is no longer performable, and the new award conditions haven't been triggered. On the other hand, let's say we have an auction or election procedure that has been initiated (where the steps are all in a single rule), and we're trying to patch something wrong with the concluding part of the election/auction. Often, in that case, we take care to say "all elections/auctions in progress terminate with no winner" or similar, assuming that amending the part of the rule dealing with the end state doesn't end the process started earlier in the rule (and since we've effectively finished step (2), the clause governing the next step (3) hasn't been amended. At this
DIS: Re: BUS: (CFJ judgement, Glitter) Re: OFF: [referee for Arbitor] CFJ 3946 assigned to ais523
ais523 wrote: I judge CFJ 3946 FALSE. I award myself Blue Glitter. I award 9 BoC (549 coins) to ais523.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3938 motion to reconsider filed (@Jason)
On 1/26/22 17:02, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On 1/26/2022 1:47 PM, Rose Strong via agora-business wrote: >> I support. > With 2 support, I group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3938. > > Gratuitous arguments: > > CFJs on the ratification of playerhood without consent: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3455 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3583 > > Other than just "that's the precedent" (which can always be reevaluated), > the "no ratification of inconsistencies" clause in R1551 is important to > read as deferring to lower-powered rules to define those inconsistencies. > > For example, if we attempted to ratify the document "this carrot is a > player", accepting that ratification would lead to a cascade of > inconsistencies - if the carrot is a player, they must be a person, but > they don't fit the definition of "person", so how does a carrot provide > consent and do person-like things, etc. It would be a mess, and we would > end up tracking all sorts of weird exceptions that don't meet the > definitions in the rules, and it completely robs the text of the rules of > their R217-granted primacy. This is the purpose of the R1551 > inconsistencies clause, to prevent that from happening. So it's important > that those sorts of impossible-by-definition ratifications fail. > > As per R869, binding a "non-consenting person" to playerhood is as > impossible as binding a carrot, so it should be treated the same way. > > Gratuitous Evidence: > > Rule 1551/21 (Power=3.2) > Ratification > > When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified, > rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified > to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was > published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the > ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if > the document explicitly specifies a different past time as being > the time the document was true, the specified time is used to > determine the minimal modifications. Such a modification cannot > add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules, and it > cannot include rule changes unless the ratified document > explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the > resulting properties of the rule(s). If no such modification is > possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible > modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification > fails. > > An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; > however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section > and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section > is to summarize information in the main section, and the main > section is internally consistent, ratification of the document > proceeds as if it contained only the main section. > > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification. > The rules may define additional information that is considered to > be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such > definitions are secured at a Power Threshold of 3. > > Ratification is secured with Power Threshold 3. > > > Previous discussion: > >> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 3:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < >> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3938. >>> >>> >>> Prior to CFJ 3583 cited below, CFJ 3455 independently says the same thing >>> - no ratification of registration without consent, due to R1551's >>> "inconsistencies cause ratification to fail" clause: >>> >>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3455 >>> >>> -G. >>> >>> On 1/26/2022 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 1/26/2022 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 1/25/2022 6:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> On 1/21/22 11:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> 1. Ratify without objection that "Hillary Rodham Clinton is a player." >> Ratification is at power 3.1 and overpowers the restriction on consent >> in Rule 869/48. > This step doesn't work by explicit precedent, so this whole argument may > need repair. If I remember the precedent correctly (will dig for it > later), the power=3.1 rule explicitly says that ratification fails if >>> it > "adds inconsistencies between gamestate and rules" and the CFJ >>> precedent I > remember stated that ratifying a non-consenting person into playerhood > would create that kind of inconsistency, and fail. > > -G. > It's CFJ 3583 that I was thinking of: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3583 (the ratification rule isn't quoted in that judgement but I checked and >>> it was
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on continuity of planning
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1. Arguments: R. Lee planned to flip eir focus on 18-Sept[1], while eir focus was Compliance[2]. E later deregistered[3], so e currently doesn't have a focus. I assume that if e re-registers, eir focus would be default (unfocused), though that could be in question[4]. Rule 2638/0 reads in part: An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. The way that reads, it looks like an interim deregistration would not interrupt this plan? But not sure. A counterargument is that e plans to flip eir focus, but eir focus is then gone (and reset to default when e comes back), so if e has no focus, eir "plan" is set to the "default" of "no plan". [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047564.html [2] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-September/015270.html [3] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047577.html [4] Rule 2162/14 reads in part: if an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. If an instance of a player switch is in a non-default value and the player deregisters (losing the switch instance) and re-registers (gaining a switch instance), it depends on whether that is considered the "same" instance as the old one - which would put it back to its previous pre-deregistration value - or a new instance, which would be created at default. I think custom/precedent is "new" but not sure about that. Fun. I register and claim a welcome package (I can do this within 30 days of my deregistration because of the way I deregistered, although only once). -- R. Lee Clever. I think you've proved that the CFJ can only be judged DISMISS, because you still have the ability to make it flip on Nov 1 or not, dependent on what you do until then, but in both cases without Planning. D'oh, I forgot to include that you also have time for another deregistration and registration in October, to fulfil all the CFJ assumptions. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on continuity of planning
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1. Arguments: R. Lee planned to flip eir focus on 18-Sept[1], while eir focus was Compliance[2]. E later deregistered[3], so e currently doesn't have a focus. I assume that if e re-registers, eir focus would be default (unfocused), though that could be in question[4]. Rule 2638/0 reads in part: An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. The way that reads, it looks like an interim deregistration would not interrupt this plan? But not sure. A counterargument is that e plans to flip eir focus, but eir focus is then gone (and reset to default when e comes back), so if e has no focus, eir "plan" is set to the "default" of "no plan". [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047564.html [2] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-September/015270.html [3] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047577.html [4] Rule 2162/14 reads in part: if an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. If an instance of a player switch is in a non-default value and the player deregisters (losing the switch instance) and re-registers (gaining a switch instance), it depends on whether that is considered the "same" instance as the old one - which would put it back to its previous pre-deregistration value - or a new instance, which would be created at default. I think custom/precedent is "new" but not sure about that. Fun. I register and claim a welcome package (I can do this within 30 days of my deregistration because of the way I deregistered, although only once). -- R. Lee Clever. I think you've proved that the CFJ can only be judged DISMISS, because you still have the ability to make it flip on Nov 1 or not, dependent on what you do until then, but in both cases without Planning. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] September Collection Notice
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self- > > ratifying stone report): > > > > All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No escape choices > > are necessary. > > CFJ: If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of > stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then > despite the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying. > > Evidence: The above-quoted message. > > Arguments: Most triggers for self-ratification in the rules require the > thing that self-ratifies to purport to be something, e.g. a Ribbons > report self-ratifies only if it's purporting to be a Ribbons report. > However, assets are a separate case; rule 2166 states that the > recordkeepor's report lists all instances of the class of assets and > their owners, and that portion of the report is self-ratifying. In > other words, the trigger is whether something *is* an asset report, not > whether it *purports to be* one. > > The Stonemason's only weekly duty, as far as I can tell, is to be "the > recordkeepor of stones". As such, I think any listing, published by the > Stonemason, of what stones exist and who their owners are is a > Stonemason weekly report by definition, even if it claims not to be. > (Specifically, I think the hypothetical collection notice posited by > the CFJ would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in rule 2143 to > perform the officekeepor's weekly duties.) > > As a side note: the actual message did not list what stones existed, > which I think is sufficient to make it not count as a weekly report; I > can't find anything in the rules that requires all the defined stones > to exist (they're indestructible but nothing forces them to have been > created in the first place). So this means, sadly, that I have to put a > hypothetical in the statement to prevent the CFJ ending up with an > obvious result on a technicality. CFJ 3798 contains a recent [1] and fairly comprehensive summary of what a document needs to do to be a report, but at a glance I don't think it unambiguously resolves this question. [1] January 2020, so recent by Agoran standards. -Aspen
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3907 Judged PARADOXICAL
On Sun, Jun 06, 2021 at 03:19:56PM +, Falsifian wrote: > > validly specified. This case is PARADOXICAL. > > Nit: I don't think you've actually assigned a judgement to this case. > You didn't specify the action of assigning a judgement, nor did you > announce that you performed it. > > -- > Falsifian Re-sending the above; my mail configuration was broken. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3907 Judged PARADOXICAL
Aris wrote: I have some final notes. First, we need to resolve the cultural dissonance between a model that is built to accept paradoxes and one that is built to avoid them. Note that neither of these models suggest that we should go around legislating in a way that causes paradoxes. The question is more how high a standard judges should apply before deciding that things really are just paradoxical. Currently, Agora doesn't seem to have made up its mind, and that can't go on. Gratuitous: I believe the collective intent of Agora is to accept novel paradoxes, but then legislatively error-trap the source or otherwise fix the relevant rules, lest they lead to an arbitrary number of additional wins just by repeating the first winner's actions.
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Victory Auction] Resolution of April 2021 VA1
On 5/16/21 2:00 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: I call two CFJs, and suggest that they be linked: CFJ: With the above-quoted message, Trigon revoked 400 Coins from Falsifian. CFJ: With the above-quoted message, Trigon created one Victory Card in Falsifian's possession. [snip] Arguments for the second CFJ: If the first CFJ is TRUE, I see no reason the second shouldn't be TRUE too. The auction rules make it clear that the auctioneer can do this if the auction method allows it, and the auction method is clear. If the first CFJ is FALSE because the auction regulation can't empower Trigon to revoke assets, then I think it comes down to the interpretation of the following sentence from the draft regulation: In this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with the lot e won. The form is: "the auctioneer CAN and SHALL do A and B". But if we've established they can't do A, then they can't do A and B. This is a bit ambiguous. Maybe the sentence has no effect since the regulation is trying to empower the auctioneer to do something (A and B together) that they can't. Or maybe it should be read as authorizing the auctioneer to do A and also B. However, even under the second interpretation, I still think it would be FALSE, because R2545 requires the auction method to be "generally recognizable ... as a fair, equitable, and timely [method]". Winning just by being the last person to state a bigger meaningless number than the last person, when a casual reading of the the regulations wouldn't make it clear that's the goal, doesn't seem fair. Gratuitous arguments: the definition of an auction is "a way for entities to give away specified assets (items), grouped into lots, in exchange for a currency" (Rule 2545/3 ¶1). My inclination here is to say that, should the first CFJ about whether a lot was transferred be judged FALSE, what I have done here fails to meet the criteria to be considered an auction as it is not a way to exchange currency for lots, implying a judgement of FALSE. Arguments for FALSE for the first CFJ: Note that the auction began before the regulations were amended. This may affect interpretation of the clause: "For the purposes of interpreting auction definitions, such methods are treated as if they are defined in this rule.", which seems to refer specifically to auction regulations. Even if we do consider the new regulation text to have been in force, I still think it should be FALSE. I think the following quotes from the recent thread "[Treasuror] [Auction Regulations Proto] Rough Draft for Redesign" summarise my position (I also included Trigon's reply). Gratuitous arguments: I have picked through the wording of Rule 2545/3 and I have more evidence now than what was quoted, and it lies in Rule 2545/3 ¶2, which I present, somewhat abbreviated. When the rules authorize a person (the auctioneer) to conduct an auction, e CAN do so by any wholly public method that ... under common definitions and terms used in auctions, as a fair, equitable, and timely means of ... enabling the appropriate exchange of goods. This is where I believe my logic falls apart, but I would really like my auctions to work, so attempt to bear with me. When the rules authorize a person to conduct an auction, we know by ¶1 that that authorizes em to oversee a means of exchanging currency for lots. This implies that any method that the auctioneer chooses that allows an equitable auction process has authorization to facilitate such a transfer by extension of the authorization to perform the auction at all. Otherwise it would not be an auction by ¶1. On the other hand, perhaps similar logic could lead one to conclude that the rules never authorize any player to begin an auction under auction regulations that fail to allow a method to transfer or destroy coins from awardees, in which case what I just have done was never was an auction in the first place. Rule 2545/3 (Power=2) Auctions An auction is a way for entities to give away specified assets (items), grouped into lots, in exchange for a currency. A lot is a non-empty list of items to be transferred to a single recipient (an auction winner). When the rules authorize a person (the auctioneer) to conduct an auction, e CAN do so by any wholly public method that would be generally recognizable, as specified by the auctioneer at the start of the auction, and under common definitions and terms used in auctions, as a fair, equitable, and timely means of determining the auction
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] R. Lee's vote
On 4/3/2021 4:52 PM, nix via agora-business wrote: > On Sunday, March 28, 2021 11:08:30 PM CDT Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I CFJ, barring R. Lee: "R. Lee's votes on the referendums on proposals >> 8549 and 8552-8555 were clearly specified." > > I indicate I'm an interested judge, and I favor this case. Apologies - I started processing the cases before this last set of emails and didn't refresh my mail until just now. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3893 judged FALSE
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 09:18:38AM -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm considering a motion to reconsider this case, and would like comments. > > Reasons: ID Numbers are nowhere explicitly defined. So what's an ID > number? It's a number used to ID a rule. Once a SLR has been published a > few times, it's clear that there's only one number that identifies a > particular rule. Even if a rulekeepor hasn't assigned a rule ID, a > statement "amend Rule " would meet R105's "Any ambiguity in the > specification of a rule change" clause, as long as SLRs around the time of > the change have listed the number and nobody's questioned it. Therefore, > those "unassigned by the rulekeepor" numbers are still numbers that ID a > proposal, and meet the common definition of ID numbers. > > Without citing this a strict precedent, CFJ 1358 has a similar principle, > that the "name" of something, if not strictly set, can be what we in > common law come to call something, if there's strong evident consensus on > that. > > Further, except in rare circumstances, the process is entirely > deterministic. Anyone can look at a proposal and the current SLR and > *know* what the next number would be by common convention, before the > rulekeepor acts. If the rulekeepor can't officially "assign" a number, e > can still in a practical sense confirm the convention by publishing an SLR > with a new number to confirm our common law consensus. This actually is a > better regulation of rule numbers. If the rulekeepor attempts to deviate > from the known pattern, it doesn't reach consensus/ambiguity standards and > fails. > > This implies that ID numbers can't be set by the rulekeepor not because > they don't exist, but because they're predetermined by common law (except > in rare cases) and the rulekeepor can't affect that. > > This would lead to TRUE when asking whether a specific rule ID (that came > about in the expected sequence) worked, but FALSE when asking whether it > was assigned by the rulekeepor. I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Are you saying: 1. We have conventions about how rule ID numbers are determined. 2. The following sentence: Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor. does two things: it says rules have distinct ID numbers, and also says the Rulekeepor's supposed to assign them. 3. The Rulekeepor can't actually assign them, so the second part doesn't work, but that doesn't mean rules don't have ID numbers. I'm not sure. The sentence could easily be interpreted as saying ID numbers are exactly those which are assigned by the Rulekeepor (subject to the restrictions in the sentence). That would mean if the Rulekeepor hasn't assigned an ID number to a rule, the rule doesn't have one (yet). I find the topic confusing. I guess it is probably worth reconsidering. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3893 judged FALSE
I'm considering a motion to reconsider this case, and would like comments.
Reasons: ID Numbers are nowhere explicitly defined. So what's an ID
number? It's a number used to ID a rule. Once a SLR has been published a
few times, it's clear that there's only one number that identifies a
particular rule. Even if a rulekeepor hasn't assigned a rule ID, a
statement "amend Rule " would meet R105's "Any ambiguity in the
specification of a rule change" clause, as long as SLRs around the time of
the change have listed the number and nobody's questioned it. Therefore,
those "unassigned by the rulekeepor" numbers are still numbers that ID a
proposal, and meet the common definition of ID numbers.
Without citing this a strict precedent, CFJ 1358 has a similar principle,
that the "name" of something, if not strictly set, can be what we in
common law come to call something, if there's strong evident consensus on
that.
Further, except in rare circumstances, the process is entirely
deterministic. Anyone can look at a proposal and the current SLR and
*know* what the next number would be by common convention, before the
rulekeepor acts. If the rulekeepor can't officially "assign" a number, e
can still in a practical sense confirm the convention by publishing an SLR
with a new number to confirm our common law consensus. This actually is a
better regulation of rule numbers. If the rulekeepor attempts to deviate
from the known pattern, it doesn't reach consensus/ambiguity standards and
fails.
This implies that ID numbers can't be set by the rulekeepor not because
they don't exist, but because they're predetermined by common law (except
in rare cases) and the rulekeepor can't affect that.
This would lead to TRUE when asking whether a specific rule ID (that came
about in the expected sequence) worked, but FALSE when asking whether it
was assigned by the rulekeepor.
On 2/4/2021 4:24 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> The question at hand is whether the Rulekeepor assigning rule numbers works.
> The caller argues that it doesn't, because the rules specify that e CAN do so
> but does not provide a method.
>
> This appears to last have been litigated in CFJ 2981.
>
> It was judged TRUE (i.e. rule numbers work) on a loophole in the wording. A
> follow-up proposal. P6992 by Murphy and omd, removed that loophole and
> attempted to make rule numbers work without it. The relevant parts of rule
> 2141 (now /14) haven't changed since.
>
> So legislative intent is very explicitly for this to work. Presumably, the
> authors expected this to work as follows (quoting from 2141/14):
>
> - "However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set
> rule aspects as described elsewhere in this rule."
> - "Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and former
> rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor."
> - Therefore, the Rulekeepor CAN "assign" ID numbers to rules.
>
> The question, then, is whether this sufficiently specifies a method for
> setting the ID number. There's an argument to be made that the Rulekeepor
> "assigns" the ID when e publishes a ruleset containing that number. It's
> certainly tempting to go with the interpretation that makes the rules work,
> but I don't think I can justify this interpretation, for a few reasons:
>
> First, it's far from the only interpretation. Other reasonable readings of
> the ruleset would be that the rule gained the ID number as soon as the
> rulekeepor decides on the number, or that e must explicitly give rules
> numbers by announcement. It's hard to justify picking this interpretation
> over the others.
>
> Second, and more importantly, Agora has moved in recent times towards
> assuming CANs without methods do not work. This is in many ways a matter of
> game custom, but there have been some attempts to codify this custom, so I'll
> be considering legislative intent heavily here.
>
> This shift was codified in P7928, which caused Rule 2125/10 to read, in part:
> {
> A Restricted 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.
> }
>
> In a comment, the proposal explains that, after it's passing, "in general,
> "by announcement" is NOT implied". Sounds like we've got pretty clear
> evidence that this is the policy, right? Wrong. Enter everybody's favorite
> proposal, Statutory Instrumentation (8354). It rephrased the relevant
> provision to "including by limiting the methods to perform that action to
> those specified within it", notably dropping the word "explicit". The
> question then, is whether this was an intended weakening, or simply an
> insignificant rephrasing.
>
> Alexis, the author of 8354, was certainly aware of the significance of that
> word "explicit"; right in the middle of drafting of that proposal, e issued a
> judgement in CFJ 3793 that discusses at length the meaning of
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3893 judged FALSE
Proto: Make ISTIDing the default method for all CANs
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:25 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The question at hand is whether the Rulekeepor assigning rule numbers
> works. The caller argues that it doesn't, because the rules specify that e
> CAN do so but does not provide a method.
>
> This appears to last have been litigated in CFJ 2981.
>
> It was judged TRUE (i.e. rule numbers work) on a loophole in the wording.
> A follow-up proposal. P6992 by Murphy and omd, removed that loophole and
> attempted to make rule numbers work without it. The relevant parts of rule
> 2141 (now /14) haven't changed since.
>
> So legislative intent is very explicitly for this to work. Presumably, the
> authors expected this to work as follows (quoting from 2141/14):
>
> - "However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set
> rule aspects as described elsewhere in this rule."
> - "Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and former
> rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor."
> - Therefore, the Rulekeepor CAN "assign" ID numbers to rules.
>
> The question, then, is whether this sufficiently specifies a method for
> setting the ID number. There's an argument to be made that the Rulekeepor
> "assigns" the ID when e publishes a ruleset containing that number. It's
> certainly tempting to go with the interpretation that makes the rules work,
> but I don't think I can justify this interpretation, for a few reasons:
>
> First, it's far from the only interpretation. Other reasonable readings of
> the ruleset would be that the rule gained the ID number as soon as the
> rulekeepor decides on the number, or that e must explicitly give rules
> numbers by announcement. It's hard to justify picking this interpretation
> over the others.
>
> Second, and more importantly, Agora has moved in recent times towards
> assuming CANs without methods do not work. This is in many ways a matter of
> game custom, but there have been some attempts to codify this custom, so
> I'll be considering legislative intent heavily here.
>
> This shift was codified in P7928, which caused Rule 2125/10 to read, in
> part: {
> A Restricted 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.
> }
>
> In a comment, the proposal explains that, after it's passing, "in general,
> "by announcement" is NOT implied". Sounds like we've got pretty clear
> evidence that this is the policy, right? Wrong. Enter everybody's favorite
> proposal, Statutory Instrumentation (8354). It rephrased the relevant
> provision to "including by limiting the methods to perform that action to
> those specified within it", notably dropping the word "explicit". The
> question then, is whether this was an intended weakening, or simply an
> insignificant rephrasing.
>
> Alexis, the author of 8354, was certainly aware of the significance of
> that word "explicit"; right in the middle of drafting of that proposal, e
> issued a judgement in CFJ 3793 that discusses at length the meaning of that
> word in 2125 (finding that, in a similar situation to the one we're dealing
> with today, an implied method was not enough).[^1] There was also a lot of
> discussion of this issue by other players at the time. However, there seems
> to have said anything about changes to this provision in Statutory
> Instrumentation, so it seems unlikely that Alexis intended to make a change
> here.
>
> Therefore, I find that game custom and the rules are clear that CANs
> without fairly explicit methods don't work. I find FALSE.
>
> So, what are the implications of this?
>
> Rule IDs are significant for two things: referring to rules, and
> last-resort precedence. For the former, I don't think there's an issue -
> each rule only has one purported number, so the references remain
> unambiguous and clear. For the latter, it's more of an issue, but I'm not
> aware if we've had any situations where this is relevant lately.
>
> [^1]: also, that CFJ has this magnificent sentence, which I can't not
> quote:
> In conclusion, this is a typical example of the rules say I do without
> saying how, therefore I do, which has plagued Agora for a long time
> but possibly not for as long as I say I do, therefore I do has.
>
> Gaelan
>
> ---
>
> Evidence:
>
> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> (coauth: omd)
> Fix rule numbers
>
> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
> 14:40:44 -0500.
>
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
> with "set or modify".
>
> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
> text:
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
> strictly ordered.
>
> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Throwing Stones
On 11/25/20 2:37 PM, nix via agora-discussion wrote: > On 11/14/20 1:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I CFJ: "On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled >> '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge." > Did you intend to/were you aware that you might have been making a > pledge when you were writing the referenced message? > No, I wasn't. I only thought it might be a pledge until a little before I called the CFJ. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Throwing Stones
On 11/14/20 1:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ: "On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled > '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones', Jason made a pledge." Did you intend to/were you aware that you might have been making a pledge when you were writing the referenced message?
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Throwing Stones
On 11/14/2020 12:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I CFJ: "On or about 00:15:33 UTC on 12 Nov 2020, in a message entitled '[Stonemason] Throwing Stones]', Jason made a pledge." Typo in the title of the message referenced. Might want to retract and call the CFJ again. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Prime Minister of Agora :)
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3880 judged TRUE
On 9/13/2020 3:41 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: On 9/6/20 6:47 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: On 8/30/2020 2:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: The below CFJ is 3880. I assign it to ATMunn. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3880 === CFJ 3880 === This is a CFJ. == Caller: Trigon Judge: ATMunn == History: Called by Trigon: 25 Aug 2020 20:29:58 Assigned to ATMunn: [now] == Alleged calling message: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-August/044696.html Arbitor's Note: If a judge finds that eir assigned CFJ is not a CFJ, common practice is to leave it in the archives with its initial ID number (along with the not- judgement) and not reassign the ID#, so it can be used as a handy reference for any follow-up CFJs that might be called on the matter. == Judge's Arguments: The only relevant piece of the rules here is the first paragraph of Rule 991: Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into by announcement. It seems reasonable to interpret the statement of "This is a CFJ" as meaning "I initiate a CFJ with the statement 'This is a CFJ'". We allow the format "CFJ: blah", and this is not that far off from that. I judge CFJ 3880 TRUE. [I could certainly see the arguments for FALSE as well, but I don't have much time and it doesn't really matter much anyway. If anyone is strongly opposed, file a Motion, but I don't think anyone will care that much.] Agora why are you like this? no u -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
On 2020-08-14 05:36, Byron Krane via agora-discussion wrote: Gratuitous arguments: There is probably no lowest integer with this property, because integers include negative numbers. Also, hi, I'm still lurking, apparently. Hopefully adding DIS: to title was automatic, I don't remember. (If not, sorry.) -- Bayushi Hi Bayushi. Would you like me to list you as a Watcher in the Registrar weekly reports? The DIS: gets added automatically by the mailing list software. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
> On Aug 13, 2020, at 10:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-business > wrote: > > Because the integer x specified in the contract is information that is > not publicly or generally available, all portions that depend on it are > an "annex". Thus, revoking 5 coins was not effective because no part of > the contract's body allowed it. > > While the contract states that "The Eligible Revocation can be > calculated as follows", that is simply not true. What is provided is a > way to /verify/ the Eligible Revocation. While theoretically 'x' could > be found via brute force has exactly one correct value, the process of > finding that integer would require resources that are certainly not > publicly or generally available. The Eligible Revocation can be determined from publicly available information (by brute force, as you mentioned). While you're certainly correct that the resources needed to do so aren't generally available (or available on this earth, as you mentioned in your side-note to your side-note), I'm not sure the rules impose any restriction on resources required for interpretation, only information required to do so. As shel mentioned, my initial note was slightly incorrect. I said "random 64-bit value", but meant "random 256-bit value" (or 64 characters of random hex). It's not a hash of a random value; the required hash itself *is* a random value. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
Side note to my side note: I misunderstood Gaelan's note. The hash
itself is completely random, I misread and though it was a hash /of/ a
value between 0 and 2^64-1 (a 64-bit value). As such, brute forcing with
all the world's ASICs would be on the order of 10^60 seconds, or 10^50
centuries.
On 8/13/20 10:57 PM, shelvacu via agora-business wrote:
> Argument for FALSE:
>
> Rule 1742 says that
>
> "The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted with
> reference only to information that is either publicly or generally
> available are known as its body; the remainder of the provisions are
> known as the annex."
>
> and
>
> "A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
> explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's *body*."
>
> Because the integer x specified in the contract is information that is
> not publicly or generally available, all portions that depend on it are
> an "annex". Thus, revoking 5 coins was not effective because no part of
> the contract's body allowed it.
>
> While the contract states that "The Eligible Revocation can be
> calculated as follows", that is simply not true. What is provided is a
> way to /verify/ the Eligible Revocation. While theoretically 'x' could
> be found via brute force has exactly one correct value, the process of
> finding that integer would require resources that are certainly not
> publicly or generally available.
>
>
> Side note: I was going to add "... and does not exist on this earth" in
> reference to what resources would be required, but I remembered that
> bitcoin exists, and because of it so do large amounts of heavily
> optimized ASICs that compute SHA256. I decided to do the calculation to
> check. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/hash-rate shows the average
> hashrate of the bitcoin network peaked at 126.941 petahashes/s (that's
> right, /peta-/). At that rate (that is, if everyone in the world
> currently running a bitcoin miner instead switched to finding Gaelan's
> number), it would take */145 seconds! /*That's it!
>
> On 8/13/20 8:15 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> I create and become a party the following contact, titled "Somewhat Annoying
>> Experiment": {
>> The Eligible Revocation can be calculated as follows:
>> Let x be the lowest integer that, represented as a decimal number in ASCII,
>> has the SHA256 hash
>> 9b722e5d98390e12c7f29dc74d30a52f2c152a35fd47f9614e35f235e025b085.
>> The Eligible Revocation is x % 10 (where % is the modulo operator).
>>
>> This contract accepts any transfers of assets.
>>
>> A party to this contract can, by announcement, revoke a number of coins in
>> its possession exactly equal to the Eligible Revocation.
>>
>> Gaelan can, by announcement, transfer assets owned by this contract to
>> emself.
>> }
>>
>> I transfer 10 coins to the above contract.
>>
>> I revoke 5 coins in that contract's possession by announcement. [No Faking
>> disclaimer: this may not work]
>>
>> CfJ: {Somewhat Annoying Experiment has exactly 5 coins.}
>>
>> Note: The SHA256 hash above is a random 64-bit value. While I believe there
>> must exist a lowest number with that hash (there is an infinite number of
>> integers, but a finite number of possible SHA256 hashes), I don't believe it
>> can be determined other than by brute force. This follows from a discussion
>> in the Discord about whether or not we have any limits on computational
>> complexity of contracts.
>>
>> Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: [CfJ][Contract][@Treasuror] Somewhat Annoying Experiment
Gratuitous arguments: There is probably no lowest integer with this
property, because integers include negative numbers.
Also, hi, I'm still lurking, apparently. Hopefully adding DIS: to
title was automatic, I don't remember. (If not, sorry.)
--
Bayushi
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 11:16 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I create and become a party the following contact, titled "Somewhat Annoying
> Experiment": {
> The Eligible Revocation can be calculated as follows:
> Let x be the lowest integer that, represented as a decimal number in ASCII,
> has the SHA256 hash
> 9b722e5d98390e12c7f29dc74d30a52f2c152a35fd47f9614e35f235e025b085.
> The Eligible Revocation is x % 10 (where % is the modulo operator).
>
> This contract accepts any transfers of assets.
>
> A party to this contract can, by announcement, revoke a number of coins in
> its possession exactly equal to the Eligible Revocation.
>
> Gaelan can, by announcement, transfer assets owned by this contract to emself.
> }
>
> I transfer 10 coins to the above contract.
>
> I revoke 5 coins in that contract's possession by announcement. [No Faking
> disclaimer: this may not work]
>
> CfJ: {Somewhat Annoying Experiment has exactly 5 coins.}
>
> Note: The SHA256 hash above is a random 64-bit value. While I believe there
> must exist a lowest number with that hash (there is an infinite number of
> integers, but a finite number of possible SHA256 hashes), I don't believe it
> can be determined other than by brute force. This follows from a discussion
> in the Discord about whether or not we have any limits on computational
> complexity of contracts.
>
> Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3869 Judged FALSE
On 8/3/2020 1:17 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:53 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 8/3/20 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869 >>> >>> The question of the day is "Is sending a public message a regulated >> action?" >>> The caller argues that it might due to the interaction of two rules. >> >> >> The reasoning itself is good, but the statement of the CFJ was "A player >> CAN send a message to agora-business by some method.", so I don't think >> FALSE was the judgment you should have assigned. > > > I'll move to reconsider after a day or two has passed to see if there are > other objections. > > -Aris Reminder that the reconsideration deadline for this is coming up shortly. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3869 Judged FALSE
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 5:53 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 8/3/20 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869 > > > > The question of the day is "Is sending a public message a regulated > action?" > > The caller argues that it might due to the interaction of two rules. > > > The reasoning itself is good, but the statement of the CFJ was "A player > CAN send a message to agora-business by some method.", so I don't think > FALSE was the judgment you should have assigned. I'll move to reconsider after a day or two has passed to see if there are other objections. -Aris > >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3869 Judged FALSE
On 8/3/20 3:38 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869 > > The question of the day is "Is sending a public message a regulated action?" > The caller argues that it might due to the interaction of two rules. The reasoning itself is good, but the statement of the CFJ was "A player CAN send a message to agora-business by some method.", so I don't think FALSE was the judgment you should have assigned. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3869 Judged FALSE
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 1:04 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> I would've loved to bring up this: >> - CFJ 3737 (called 15 Jun 2019): Actions that the rules state a player >> SHALL NOT perform are considered to be regulated actions. >> - R2471: "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. (...)" >> >> DUN DUN DUUUN > > > That specific example is the reason for the "Now, to be clear" paragraph. > On review, I think it's plausible that making a public statement may be > regulated, but it's outside the scope of this case. And, in any case, I'm > reasonably sure that Rule 478 would countermand a rule making it impossible > to publish a public statement. We have a precedent somewhere that says that > it countermands bans on publishing the truth, and making it impossible to > publicly same anything would seem to be similarly egregious. > ^say -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3869 Judged FALSE
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:56 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I would've loved to bring up this: > - CFJ 3737 (called 15 Jun 2019): Actions that the rules state a player > SHALL NOT perform are considered to be regulated actions. > - R2471: "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. (...)" > > DUN DUN DUUUN That specific example is the reason for the "Now, to be clear" paragraph. On review, I think it's plausible that making a public statement may be regulated, but it's outside the scope of this case. And, in any case, I'm reasonably sure that Rule 478 would countermand a rule making it impossible to publish a public statement. We have a precedent somewhere that says that it countermands bans on publishing the truth, and making it impossible to publicly same anything would seem to be similarly egregious. -Aris >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3869 Judged FALSE
I would've loved to bring up this: - CFJ 3737 (called 15 Jun 2019): Actions that the rules state a player SHALL NOT perform are considered to be regulated actions. - R2471: "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. (...)" DUN DUN DUUUN But oh well, maybe some other time On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:39 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3869 > > The question of the day is "Is sending a public message a regulated > action?" > The caller argues that it might due to the interaction of two rules. > > Rule 2125 defines regulated actions as follows: > > An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is > limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) > that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would > succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify > information for which some person bound by that body of law is > required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor. > > > This definition is relevant in this case because, due to further provisions > of Rule 2125, anything regulated by a rule cannot be done except as > authorized > by the rules; if sending a public message were regulated, this would be > a problem, because no rule explicitly enables the sending of public > messages. > > Fortunately, no rule describes the circumstances under which sending a > message > suceeds or fails, and messages do not, in and of themselves, modify > information > tracked by any recordkeepor. That leaves their performance its performance > being > limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that the rules. > > The caller believes that e has found a provision permitting persons to > send messages in Rule 478, which as follows: > > 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. > > The caller contends that "A plain reading of this seems to indicate that > Rule 478 'permits' players to participate in the Fora - preventing someone > from > being prohibited from doing something is ensuring that they are permitted > to do > it." > > The caller is right, as far as e goes. Preventing someone from > being prohibited from doing something is *ensuring* that they are permitted > to do it. It is not, however, permitting them to do it, even if the effect > is largely identical in practice. To permit is to "give authorization or > consent to (someone) to do something." Rule 478 doesn't authorize anyone > to do anything, it just knocks down any prohibitions on taking certain > actions. > > For instance, imagine two different couples, each raising one teenage son. > The sons each request permission to stay out past curfew to attend prom > together. In the first household, one parent gives the sons permission to > stay > out past curfew. In the other household, the mother tries to object, but > the father immediately begins shouting about how the mother is > "always too hard on our darling", leading her to falling silent. Both > of the young men can go on their date. However, in only the former > case was the son was permitted to go out; in the latter, the prohibition > on the > son going out was prevented. > > Lest objectors claim that these actions are one and the same thing, let me > note one further implication present in the case of prohibiting a > prohibition > that would not be present were mere permission involved. Rule 478 can be > read to prohibit the Distributor from censoring the Fora. By contrast, > a mere statement that players MAY send messages to the Fora would not have > such an effect. > > Now, to be clear, the rules do limit, allow, enable, and permit doing > certain things in the messages one sends. But sending a message with > certain > content is an altogether different matter from sending them in general. > > As a personal note, I apologize for not using either of the excellent > gratuitous > arguments I received in response to my request. In particular, I found > section > a of ais523's both ingenious and extremely convincing. Although I did not > need > to reach it, I would have used it if the logic I used here had not > occurred to me. > > No rule takes away the inherent and naturally existing ability of players > to send messages to agora-business. Accordingly, FALSE. > > Judge's Evidence > > Rule 2125/12 (Power=3) > Regulated Actions > > An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is > limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) > that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would > succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify > information for which some person bound by that body of law is > required,
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] [@SEAMSTRESS] nothing to see there, either
On 8/2/2020 11:26 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-08-02 12:21, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >> Another argument: >> >> Even if the disclaimer does sit alone in its own message, it's also part >> of Trigon's entire message, and it's not clear which "message" the >> disclaimer is referring to. Therefore, I don't think anything in a >> message from Trigon containing that in eir signature can satisfy the >> "unambiguously" requirement for by-announcement actions. > > Alternatively, just because a message purports to not contain game > actions, does that have the power to change anything? > Not necessarily. That was mainly what I was testing and I didn't think the disclaimer would work. Take the example of Officer Reports. I'm not at all sure that disclaimer stops reports and there's a good case to be made that it doesn't. The disclaimer mainly "works" by showing that there's no intent to perform an action, e.g. it takes away the "announcing that e performs it" part of R478. But that's only for by-announcement actions. For Reports, there's not even a CAN in the rules (e.g. no "a person CAN publish a report"). R2143 just says "publication of all such information is part of eir weekly duties." If you publish the information, you do, even with a disclaimer of "no action". Remembering that a Document can be a sub-part of a message, and that a "Document purporting to be a report" basically is a report - if you had a message divided into two documents, where Document A is "purporting to be a report", and Document B says "Document A is not a report", then the conclusion could very well just be "Document B is lying". I use a disclaimer on my CotC case logs so that when I say something like "Judge: " in the formatted section, no one could mistake that for actually assigning a judge. But that's just extra insurance really, and if I did put something more action-like in there the disclaimer might not work. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] The Strictly Regulated Bench
Nothing personal, you were just the first Agoran in the judge list who I was
pretty sure was post 2017.
Gaelan
> On Jul 30, 2020, at 11:48 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 7/30/20 2:46 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: { Jason is not an interested judge. }
>>
>> EVIDENCE
>>
>> Proposal 7899 (Oct 2017) appended the following to rule 991 (calls for
>> judgement):
>>
>> {
>> The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent
>> judicial case activity, including open and recently-judged
>> cases, recent judicial assignments, and a list of players
>> interested in judging.
>> }
>>
>> That text is still there, unchanged, in the current 991/33.
>>
>> Rule 2125/12 reads (in part):
>> {
>> An action is regulated by a body of law if […] (3) it would, as part of its
>> effect, modify information for which some person bound by that body of law
>> is required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
>>
>> If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is
>> within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed
>> except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform
>> that action to those specified within it. […]
>> }
>>
>> ARGUMENTS
>>
>> “Recordkeepor” is defined by the rules only in the context of assets, but it
>> seems fairly obvious to parse this as “information… for which some person
>> bound by that body of law is required to include in eir report.” Therefore,
>> becoming interested in judging is a regulated action. Therefore, one can
>> only become an interested judge except as described by the rules, which
>> provide no mechanism to do so. Jason registered in Jun 2019, after Oct 2017
>> when interested judgeship became a regulated action. Therefore, there is no
>> way ey could have become a interested judge.
>>
>> Gaelan
>
>
> Oh no! My Agoran life is flashing before my eyes! I... I.. need to lie down.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] The Strictly Regulated Bench
On 7/30/20 2:46 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: { Jason is not an interested judge. }
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> Proposal 7899 (Oct 2017) appended the following to rule 991 (calls for
> judgement):
>
> {
> The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent
> judicial case activity, including open and recently-judged
> cases, recent judicial assignments, and a list of players
> interested in judging.
> }
>
> That text is still there, unchanged, in the current 991/33.
>
> Rule 2125/12 reads (in part):
> {
> An action is regulated by a body of law if […] (3) it would, as part of its
> effect, modify information for which some person bound by that body of law is
> required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
>
> If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is
> within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed
> except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform
> that action to those specified within it. […]
> }
>
> ARGUMENTS
>
> “Recordkeepor” is defined by the rules only in the context of assets, but it
> seems fairly obvious to parse this as “information… for which some person
> bound by that body of law is required to include in eir report.” Therefore,
> becoming interested in judging is a regulated action. Therefore, one can only
> become an interested judge except as described by the rules, which provide no
> mechanism to do so. Jason registered in Jun 2019, after Oct 2017 when
> interested judgeship became a regulated action. Therefore, there is no way ey
> could have become a interested judge.
>
> Gaelan
Oh no! My Agoran life is flashing before my eyes! I... I.. need to lie down.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > I support this. > > On reading the judgement, I'm quite amused, but left a bit dissatisfied. > In particular, I don't see how this is different than other contract > clauses that "affirm consent" via an elongated process (e.g. with Notice > or whatnot). The main difference is the final trigger is the passage of a > deadline. But that deadline is also public information. If a public > clause read "If noone objects to a change within X, it automatically takes > effect", it's not clear to me that this would be blocked, as all the > information is publicly available even if the deadline passes silently. It might work for amendments, which only require consent. But here you have to "publicly make an agreement", and I can't see how the agreement is made "in a public message" if it takes effect automatically after the message is complete? It strikes me as being more akin to "I transfer G. 5 coins in 5 minutes". -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
On 7/29/2020 4:06 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I motion to reconsider. This fails; group-filing a Motion to Reconsider is a 2-support dependent action. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Czar of Russia :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
On 7/29/20 7:50 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > Difficult, yes, but formally IMPOSSIBLE? Something something regulated actions. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3866 Judged FALSE
Difficult, yes, but formally IMPOSSIBLE? On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:34 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2020-07-29 at 10:06 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > > I motion to reconsider. The "A public message, after all, is evaluated > only > > once, and does not continue taking effect thereafter" thing seems weird > to > > me, considering that we can do deadlines for things. Or maybe deadlines > > just don't work at all! Which would be amusing as well. > > > > For example "This contract is OPEN before July 1, and CLOSED after it." > > > > It would be weird that such a contract would be OPEN forever, but that is > > what this Judgement seems to imply, that mechanisms "in the background" > > can't happen, because they're not being evaluated by a message. That, or > > the reproduction still works, and my CfJ referring to these reproducing > > contracts did set this Schr??ninger's Box to the state it was written to > be > > in. > > Gratuitous: the "OPEN" / "CLOSED" example works because it changes only > contract-defined gamestate, not something tracked by the rules of Agora > themselves. It could easily be interpreted as a shorthand definition: > "This contract is OPEN" means "The date is before July 1". > > Changing officer-tracked information is much more difficult. > > -- > ais523 > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ 2740 listed]
I guess I was mistaken about the record length, so sorry for that. -- -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE on Reconsideration
On 2020-07-04 7:11 p.m., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business wrote:
I established in my previous judgment on this case that an intent to
engage in a forbidden action is an attempt to perform a forbidden
action; however, the case is under reconsideration because it is unclear
whether eir action was forbidden. Eir action was the following:
I thought of another thing to consider: R2221 says
Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.
I don't think R. Lee specified any such corrections. Eir message was:
> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
> inconsequential way:
> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
> "Meep"
If e had said "[Fix spelling somewhere] and then amend all the other
words to read 'Meep'" then e would have indeed specified a spelling
corrections, so maybe the whole change would have been applied ("the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person").
I don't think it changes the outcome of the case, since a buggy attempt
is still an attempt. But I wonder if my interpretation is correct.
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/2020 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/2020 1:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: Even if it turns out my arguments are terrible and it gets reconsidered, I'm glad I put the effort into it. At a first read, this looks comprehensive and well-done. Thanks for putting in the substantial effort when you could have just stuck with your original. I've got an honor debt to you for when I can next give honor. Minor formatting thing: Do you mind if I mark the multi-line quoted sections of your arguments with >'s when I put it in the archive? Nope, go ahead. Also on this bit: The judge's definition of "buried" seems a bit odd to me. In poking around the discussion at the time I now think e meant "buried" in the strict sense of "part of a quoted section" (buried) versus "in a break in the quoted section" (not buried). Not important at all but a little less mysterious in that context! Ah, that would make sense. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/2020 1:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > Even if it turns out > my arguments are terrible and it gets reconsidered, I'm glad I put the > effort into it. At a first read, this looks comprehensive and well-done. Thanks for putting in the substantial effort when you could have just stuck with your original. I've got an honor debt to you for when I can next give honor. Minor formatting thing: Do you mind if I mark the multi-line quoted sections of your arguments with >'s when I put it in the archive? Also on this bit: > The judge's definition of "buried" seems a bit odd to me. In poking around the discussion at the time I now think e meant "buried" in the strict sense of "part of a quoted section" (buried) versus "in a break in the quoted section" (not buried). Not important at all but a little less mysterious in that context! -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3857 Judgement: This is a weird one.
Cool, the fact that it's you doesn't matter to the CFJ itself (we judge CFJs at the time they are called). Your vote was not withdrawn and your second vote did not count. On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 11:01 PM Unspecified Behavior via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:51 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 6/30/20 6:57 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: > > > Whether or not the ballot satisfied the sixth condition for a valid > > > ballot is impossible to decide. This is because the anonymous player > > > was unsuccessful in retracting eir previous vote if e had cast one. To > > > quote rule 683 "an entity can by announcement withdraw... a ballot". > > > For an action to be taken by announcement, rule 478 tells us that the > > > actor "performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying > > > the action and announcing that e performs it." In this case, the actor > > > was taking the action of withdrawing a specific player's previous > > > ballot. For an action to be "unambiguous" and "clear" it must, at the > > > bare minimum, be possible to resolve, but this retraction is a > > > gigantic mystery. The recordkeepor simply doesn't know who to withdraw > > > the vote from, and no other Agoran knows either. I don't hold that > > > anonymous actions can never be ambiguous and clear, I simply hold that > > > in the specific case of withdrawing a specific person's ballot on an > > > Agoran decision, part of that action is obviously and integrally the > > > actor and their previous vote on the agoran decision (after all, a > > > vote never cast can't be withdrawn). So this action of withdrawing > > > fails. > > > > > > Well, you happen to be wrong that the recordkeepor didn't know whose > > ballot to withdraw. > > > > - The person controlling the unspecified.behav...@gmail.com email > address. > > > > > I affirm that I am the player commonly known as Jason. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3857 Judgement: This is a weird one.
On 6/30/20 8:50 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/30/20 6:57 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: >> Whether or not the ballot satisfied the sixth condition for a valid >> ballot is impossible to decide. This is because the anonymous player >> was unsuccessful in retracting eir previous vote if e had cast one. To >> quote rule 683 "an entity can by announcement withdraw... a ballot". >> For an action to be taken by announcement, rule 478 tells us that the >> actor "performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying >> the action and announcing that e performs it." In this case, the actor >> was taking the action of withdrawing a specific player's previous >> ballot. For an action to be "unambiguous" and "clear" it must, at the >> bare minimum, be possible to resolve, but this retraction is a >> gigantic mystery. The recordkeepor simply doesn't know who to withdraw >> the vote from, and no other Agoran knows either. I don't hold that >> anonymous actions can never be ambiguous and clear, I simply hold that >> in the specific case of withdrawing a specific person's ballot on an >> Agoran decision, part of that action is obviously and integrally the >> actor and their previous vote on the agoran decision (after all, a >> vote never cast can't be withdrawn). So this action of withdrawing >> fails. > > > Well, you happen to be wrong that the recordkeepor didn't know whose > ballot to withdraw. > > - The person controlling the unspecified.behav...@gmail.com email address. > For our records, could you confirm this from that address as well? -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3856 Judged FALSE
>"the strong interest of the game" oh hi it's you again On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:11 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3856 > > omd's exploit is the most clever I have seen during my time as a player. > Rule 1742, "Contracts" says, in part, "Rules to the contrary > notwithstanding, > any change that would cause the full provisions or parties of a contract to > become publicly unavailable is canceled and does not take effect." omd > attempted > to exploit this provision by consenting to an automatic amendment of a > contract > to publicly unavailable text when certain events took place. Eir theory > was that the events would count as a "change" and then be blocked > by Rule 1742. Specifically, omd attempted to block both the exiling of > players > and the claiming of Welcome Packages. > > The word "any" is expansive. "any change that would cause the full > provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable" could > plausibly be multiple changes, one of which caused another. I am not at all > convinced that "cause" implies proximate causation in this case. It may > simply require mechanical causation (i.e. that the change trigger > the effect by operation of law). If the rule had meant "proximately > caused", > I believe it would either have said so or used other phrasing to make that > intent clear. > > However, I find the caller's arguments with respect to the word "change" > convincing. Indeed, while on a first reading I was believed omd's attempt > worked, on a second reading I identified the same problem the caller did. > A "change" clearly refers to an actual change to the gamestate, rather than > a game action. Thus "any change that would cause the full provisions > or parties of a contract to become publicly unavailable" refers to the > change > to the contract, not the action that triggered that change. If there were > any ambiguity, the strong interest of the game in stopping players from > blocking arbitrary game actions would resolve it in favor of my > interpretation. > > One final note. Even if everything I'd said in the last paragraph were > incorrect, omd would not have blocked exiles. Rule 1742, "Contracts" is > power > 2.5. Rule 2556, "Penalties", which provides for exile, is power 3.0. Thus, > even with the "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" clause, Rule 1742 > cannot block exiles. On the other hand, it could block Welcome Packages, > which are only provided for by Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", at a power of > 1.0. > > However, I have ruled that omd simply misapplied the relevant provision of > Rule 1742. Thus, eir contract could not block anything. FALSE. > > Judge's Evidence > > Rule 1742/22 (Power=2.5) > Contracts > > Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may > publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention > that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such > an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, > including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all > existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the > consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the > number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a > person to become a party to a contract without eir consent. > > 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. > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause > the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly > unavailable is canceled and does not take effect. > > The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted > with reference only to information that is either publicly or > generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the > provisions are known as the annex. > > A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as > explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > * By announcement, revoke destructible assets from the contract. > > * By announcement, transfer liquid assets from the contract to a > specified recipient. > > > Rule 2499/7 (Power=1) > Welcome Packages > > If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most > recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by > announcement. > > When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins and > one of each type of Card defined in the rules. > > > Rule 2556/1 (Power=3) > Penalties > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win > the game. > > The voting strength of a player on an Agoran decision is reduced > by 1 for every 3 blots in eir possession. > > A
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Agoran Announcements
> On Jun 28, 2020, at 7:28 PM, nch via agora-business > wrote: > - If it refers to the announcement, what does it mean for an announcement to > be valid or invalid? Does an invalid announcement fail to have effect? I’d argue that being valid or invalid is not an inherent property of the announcement. Instead, ‘valid’ here means ‘suitable as a method to perform the aforementioned action’ – in other words, it modifies the meaning of “by announcement” as defined in R478.
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Agoran Announcements
On 6/28/20 9:28 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > There was some debate and disagreement about this in the discord the > other night, so I think it's worth formally discussing. As a tangent, I don't think I could've formulated this CFJ this well without the previous discussion in discord. In my opinion this is a good example of ephemeral discussion (such as brainstorming) leading to better long-form communication. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/2020 2:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook wrote: >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied >> from Agora's Rule 217: >> >> When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >> takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >> unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >> judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > interested. > I'd join this if there's not too many other subgames going on (i.e. would be too much to do this and a different birthday tournament simultaneouesly). -G.
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/2020 5:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied from Agora's Rule 217: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were interested. I think I would be interested. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
to be fair, this might be different if i had not made it clear that i rule you all like a monarch On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius > > Scholasticus. > > > >> > > > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > > >> > > > >> === CFJ 3851 > > === > > > >> > > > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message > in > > > >> evidence. > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > >> Caller:G. > > > >> Barred:R. Lee > > > >> > > > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > >> > > > >> History: > > > >> > > > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 > 02:49:52 > > > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > > >> > > > >> > > > == > > > > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one > > of > > > > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this > > > > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to > > > > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a > forbidden > > > > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a > term > > > > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting > > definitions: > > > > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended > > commission > > > > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and > taking > > > > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] > > > > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent > > > > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the > > > > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given > > that > > > > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later > > > > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any > other > > > > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. > Given > > > > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the > > > > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a > > > > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. > > > > > > > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else > here. > > > > > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > > > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition > > of > > > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > > > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of > all > > > parties. > > > > > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > > > > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > > > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > > > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > > > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew > > what > > > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining > proof > > > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that > found > > > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > > > > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > > > that's fine too... > > > > > > -G. > > > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > > > > We have one of those on the Discord server. So far the end result appears > to be that, in the absence of any defined way of contributing to
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
this nomic already exists: it's the ruleset of my discord server. nerds. On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:10 PM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose > >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied > >> from Agora's Rule 217: > >> > >>When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules > >>takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > >>unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past > >>judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > >> > > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > > interested. > > > > -- > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth > > I like the idea but wouldn't commit to it right now just because there's > so much going on in Agora right now. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/20 4:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose >> initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied >> from Agora's Rule 217: >> >>When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules >>takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or >>unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past >>judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. >> > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were > interested. > > -- > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate > Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth I like the idea but wouldn't commit to it right now just because there's so much going on in Agora right now. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Nomic 217 Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/27/20 12:10 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose > initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied > from Agora's Rule 217: > > When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules > takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or > unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past > judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > I think that would be an interesting experiment to revive if others were interested. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied from Agora's Rule 217: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 9:18 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I may have forgotten this case existed. > > Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety: > >> Rule 2221/7 (Power=3) >> Cleanliness >> >> Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or >> more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, >> and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in >> place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the >> rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person. > > > R. Lee's intent was: > >> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following >> inconsequential way: >> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read >> "Meep" > > > The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent > to clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid > because it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for > each rule. If the latter, it could potentially be construed as one > violation per enacted rule (of which there are 136)... > > That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered > readings is right. > > -- > Jason Cobb On re-reading, these arguments aren't relevant to the judgement or whether the action would ossify (I'm sorry for derailing the thread), but they might affect how R. Lee will be punished. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/2020 6:14 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > === CFJ 3851 === > > R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > evidence. > > == > Caller:G. > Barred:R. Lee > > Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > == > > History: > > Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 > Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > == First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. >>> >>> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. >>> >>> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" >>> would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of >>> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" >>> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all >>> parties. >>> >>> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. >>> >>> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little >>> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed >>> forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't >>> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what >>> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof >>> of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found >>> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. >>> >>> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, >>> that's fine too... >>> >>> -G. >> >> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with >> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest >> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. >> >> It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the >> power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you >> say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's >> an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" >> >> Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as >> implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take >> effect unless they would ossify Agora. >> >> - Falsifian >> > > There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the > case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have. I think R1698 basically says "the only rule is that you can always change the rules". It's good proof that the rules can still be changed. It suggests the word "proposal" as an agent of change, suggesting some sort of democratic/discussion process. And as a playable concept, it's honestly not much different than playing a face-to-face nomic. In email nomic, you have to spell out a lot of assumptions to start. How to vote, for example. In the original
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 12:04 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >>> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >>> >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 >>> >>> === CFJ 3851 === >>> >>> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in >>> evidence. >>> >>> == >>> Caller:G. >>> Barred:R. Lee >>> >>> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >>> >>> == >>> >>> History: >>> >>> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 >>> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] >>> >>> == >> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of >> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this >> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to >> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden >> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term >> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: >> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission >> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking >> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] >> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent >> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the >> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that >> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later >> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other >> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given >> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the >> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a >> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. >> > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all > parties. > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > that's fine too... > > -G. > I may have forgotten this case existed. Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety: > Rule 2221/7 (Power=3) > Cleanliness > > Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or > more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, > and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in > place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the > rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person. R. Lee's intent was: > I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following > inconsequential way: > Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read > "Meep" The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent to clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid because it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for each rule. If the latter, it could potentially be construed as one violation per enacted rule (of which there are 136)... That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered readings is right. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 === CFJ 3851 === R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in evidence. == Caller:G. Barred:R. Lee Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus == History: Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] == >>> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of >>> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this >>> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to >>> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden >>> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term >>> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: >>> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission >>> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking >>> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] >>> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent >>> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the >>> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that >>> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later >>> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other >>> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given >>> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the >>> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a >>> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. >>> >> >> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. >> >> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" >> would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of >> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" >> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all >> parties. >> >> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. >> >> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little >> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed >> forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't >> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what >> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof >> of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found >> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. >> >> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, >> that's fine too... >> >> -G. > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > > - Falsifian > There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus. > > >> > > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > > >> > > >> === CFJ 3851 > === > > >> > > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > > >> evidence. > > >> > > >> > == > > >> Caller:G. > > >> Barred:R. Lee > > >> > > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > >> > > >> > == > > >> > > >> History: > > >> > > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 > > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > > >> > > >> > == > > > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one > of > > > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this > > > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to > > > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden > > > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term > > > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting > definitions: > > > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended > commission > > > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking > > > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] > > > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent > > > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the > > > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given > that > > > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later > > > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other > > > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given > > > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the > > > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a > > > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. > > > > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. > > > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition > of > > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all > > parties. > > > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew > what > > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof > > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found > > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > > that's fine too... > > > > -G. > > I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with > just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest > out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. > > It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the > power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you > say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's > an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" > > Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as > implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take > effect unless they would ossify Agora. > We have one of those on the Discord server. So far the end result appears to be that, in the absence of any defined way of contributing to the game, no one even tries. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > >> > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 > >> > >> === CFJ 3851 === > >> > >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in > >> evidence. > >> > >> == > >> Caller:G. > >> Barred:R. Lee > >> > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> > >> == > >> > >> History: > >> > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] > >> > >> == > > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of > > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this > > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to > > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden > > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term > > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: > > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission > > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking > > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] > > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent > > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the > > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that > > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later > > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other > > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given > > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the > > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a > > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. > > > > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. > > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" > would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all > parties. > > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. > > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed > forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof > of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. > > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, > that's fine too... > > -G. I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly. It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!" Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take effect unless they would ossify Agora. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE
On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> The below CFJ is 3851. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851 >> >> === CFJ 3851 === >> >> R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in >> evidence. >> >> == >> Caller:G. >> Barred:R. Lee >> >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> == >> >> History: >> >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52 >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now] >> >> == > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions: > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2] > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851. > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here. I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep" would ossify agora. However, this would remove the explicit definition of contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law" agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all parties. And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689. And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed forum). Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof of consent, etc. Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed. Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora, that's fine too... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Dependent dependencies
On 6/23/20 10:15 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are > called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on? > They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days > passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the > conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a > condition. Counterpoint: even with T notice depends on the absence of objections from a specific person - the Speaker, so it is still dependent on the state of objections to the intent in general. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Dependent dependencies
This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a
condition.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:59 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I CFJ: "An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on
> objections."
>
> I bar nch, although I believe R. Lee also has self-interest.
>
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> Rule 2124/26 [Excerpt]:
>
> > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
> > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
> > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> >
> > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
> > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
>
>
> Dictionary definition of "define":
>
> [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depend
>
> }
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> What it means for an action to "depend on objections" is not defined in
> the rules. This means that it has its common language meaning. The word
> at issue is "depend". Merriam-Webster [0] defines "depend" as an
> intransitive verb meaning:
>
> 1. to be determined, based, or contingent
>
> 2. to be pending or undecided
>
> 3. a. to place reliance or trust
>
>b. to be dependent especially for financial support
>
> 4. to hang down
>
>
> I believe definition 1 here makes the most sense in context. I see two
> ways to interpret an action "depending on objections" - it either must
> require objects to be performable, or it must be affected by objections.
> The former makes no sense - no dependent action requires objections in
> order to be actionable, which would mean the clause has no effect. This
> leaves the second reading - the action "depends on objections" if
> objections affect whether it can be performed.
>
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice is affected by the presence
> or absence of objections. In particular, it is affected by the presence
> of an objection from the Speaker, who can veto an action for 48 hours by
> objecting. This is consistent with a common language reading - the
> effectiveness of an action to be performed with 7 days action is, in
> part, "determined" by, "based" on, or "contingent" upon, the presence or
> absence of an objection. Because of this, I argue that an action to be
> performed with 7 days notice "depends on objections" and argue for TRUE.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] DEFINITELY NOT TRIGON
On 6/21/2020 8:15 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > As Trigon points out, my message's subject might be more properly "BUS: > TRIGON" rather than "TRIGON". CFJ 3459 suggests we accept the evidence of a message's sender in terms of what the subject line was when it was sent: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3459 though I don't know who would count as the sender for the "message" in this case...
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3853 Judged True
On 6/21/20 4:11 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > On 6/20/20 9:37 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: >> === CFJ 3853 === >> >> Within the past week, Jason committed the crime of Uncertain >> Certification. >> >> == >> >> I judge CFJ 3853 TRUE. > I earn a blue ribbon for judging CFJ 3853. > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > Ooops no I don't. I earn blue glitter for judging CFJ 3853. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE
On 6/20/2020 11:55 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >>> These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've >>> got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I >>> think the core of the arguments should be good though. >> >> I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases. I'm >> curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like >> the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about >> grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like >> "exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that >> doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and >> redefined (e.g. jargon?) >> >> Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going... > > > That's not the portion that covers jargon. It's the underlying reasoning > behind that, which Rebecca pointed out. Basically my contention is that a > lot of our legal standards for understanding text can and should be boiled > down to "do the players understand what's going on here?". Your precedent > on jargon for instance, CFJ 3663, is entirely compatible with this > approach. I just personally found it a little light on the "why" aspect. > There are some other CFJs that I think are consistent with it, like our > precedents on non-English languages, and there are some precedents I think > are inconsistent with it. So the goal of the thesis would be to outline why > this is the right model, explain it in more detail, and show which > precedents are and aren't consistent with it. Thanks! That makes sense and sounds like a very useful and productive endeavor (and the scale is definitely thesis-worthy), I'll look forward to it whenever it comes! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've > > got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I > > think the core of the arguments should be good though. > > I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases. I'm > curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like > the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about > grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like > "exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that > doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and > redefined (e.g. jargon?) > > Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going... That's not the portion that covers jargon. It's the underlying reasoning behind that, which Rebecca pointed out. Basically my contention is that a lot of our legal standards for understanding text can and should be boiled down to "do the players understand what's going on here?". Your precedent on jargon for instance, CFJ 3663, is entirely compatible with this approach. I just personally found it a little light on the "why" aspect. There are some other CFJs that I think are consistent with it, like our precedents on non-English languages, and there are some precedents I think are inconsistent with it. So the goal of the thesis would be to outline why this is the right model, explain it in more detail, and show which precedents are and aren't consistent with it. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE
On 6/19/2020 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've > got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I > think the core of the arguments should be good though. I think your judgements as-is are plenty for your current cases. I'm curious though, you implied your line of thinking would cover things like the Shinies case, but I don't see the connection too much, you talk about grammatical sensibilities (and how using a defined term of art like "exploded" would imply the undefined opposite of "unexploded") but that doesn't impact so much how nouns and terms of art are defined and redefined (e.g. jargon?) Not saying you need to add that, just curious where it was going...
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3853 Judged True
On 6/20/20 9:37 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > Also note a gratuitous argument [4] submitted at the time the CFJ was > called which uses similar reasoning to arrive at a similar conclusion. This is tacked on at the end because I actually didn't read this gratuitous until I had written the rest of the ruling, and couldn't find a way to really integrate its arguments without just saying "same". -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3846 Judged FALSE
>To be honest, I'm pretty sure >that most of Agora's interpretative woes could be solved by rigorous >application of the principle that language means what people think it means >coupled with rigorous adherence to the text of the rules Yep, I've always tried to (sometimes covertly) judge CFJs in precisely this manner. Your judgements are both obviously correct and basically are the same as I would have judged them (except you are more eloquent) On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 3:36 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > These judgments are basically drafts. I'm assigning them because I've > got to assign something, but I'm happy to reconsider as appropriate. I > think the core of the arguments should be good though. > > BTW, the big exciting part got cut due to time constraints, but I've > hinted at what it is, just not shown all of the details.] > > Judge's Arguments in CFJ 3846 > > The former of the caller's arguments, regarding Rule 2162, has already been > dealt with in CFJ 3845. > > That leaves eir second argument, which is as follows: > > 1. A CFJ with a judge switch set to "unassigned" is unassigned. > 2. The reason for this is that any entity "is" any the current value >of each of that entity's switches. > 3. Therefore, CFJ 3835 is G. > > I think we can all agree with #1. The weak step in this argument is #2. > The argument fails if the reason for #1 is something other than #2. > > First, and most obviously, the word unassigned has a meaning > Without even having to look it up, I can tell you it means "not assigned". > It could mean "not assigned ever" or "not assigned right now", but it darn > well means one of those things. One of the values of a CFJ's judge switch > is "unassigned". That clarifies which of the two senses of the natural > language word "unassigned" is meant: the one that accords with the > value of the switch. Incidentally, this works much the same way for > offices being vacant. > > That explanation is enough to resolve the argument set forth by the caller. > However, there is another argument that could be produced. > > Imagine a rule that stated "Exploded is a negative boolean proposal > switch." > Perhaps exploding a proposal is method of disabling it, and exploded > proposals > CANNOT be adopted. > > People might begin to refer to exploded proposals as "exploded proposals", > as > I've already been doing. If you're an average Agoran, I'll bet you didn't > even > notice me referring to proposals with an exploded switch set to true as > "exploded proposals" until I pointed it out. It just makes sense. What else > would anyone mean by an "exploded" proposal? And once you've gone that > far, why not start referring to proposals that have their exploded switch > set > to false as "unexploded"? After all, unexploded means "not exploded", so it > seems like a sensible enough conversion. It would be just as sensible to do > the same if the proposal switch was "explodedness" and the values were > "exploded" and "unexploded". So what's going on here? > > I don't have a tidy explanation for this. The best I have is this: language > means what people think it means. We've gotten so used to using adjectives > to describe nouns that if we see something that looks adjectival being > a property of something that looks nounish, we just naturally speak with > the adjective describing the noun. This is how our language works. Because > everyone understands it, it's meaningful. To be honest, I'm pretty sure > that most of Agora's interpretative woes could be solved by rigorous > application of the principle that language means what people think it means > coupled with rigorous adherence to the text of the rules, but that's a > matter for another day (I may write a thesis). > > The same principle, if applied to this case, resolves the matter > conclusively. > No Agoran would say that CFJ 3846 is G., just because e is its judge. > The adjectival principle I mentioned above does not apply to nouns. Making > it > apply to nouns would like require a major change in Agoran language, rather > than a mere shift in usage. > > The long and the short of it is, no matter how one explains the fact that > a CFJ can be unassigned, CFJ 3846 doesn't come even remotely close to being > G. FALSE. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3847 found TRUE
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 8:13 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > > Speaking of ribbons, do I have to wait at all or can I immediately claim > a Blue Ribbon for this? > You can do it immediately. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3847 found TRUE
Speaking of ribbons, do I have to wait at all or can I immediately claim a Blue Ribbon for this? On 6/13/2020 8:08 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: Caller's Arguments: There's seemingly nothing stopping an impure person from Raising a Banner if eir ribbon ownership allows, even though e's prevented from winning. It's unclear whether the ribbon reset is a result of raising the banner on its own, or whether failure to win prevents the reset. Caller's Evidence: From Rule 2438/18 (Power=3) Ribbons: While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set. From Rule 2556/1 (Power=3) Penalties: Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win the game. Judge's Arguments: Since the statement in rule 2438 stating that a person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set upon Raising a Banner is not conditional upon the preceding statement that e wins the game, one can happen without the other. Therefore, e CANNOT win the game due to the "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding" clause in Rule 2556, but eir Ribbon Ownership is still reset. As per the caller's arguments and mine, I find this CFJ TRUE. -- ATMunn future notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] ribbon win question
On 6/12/20 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I CFJ: If an impure person Raises a Banner, eir Ribbon Ownership becomes > the empty set but e does not win the game. > > > Arguments: > > There's seemingly nothing stopping an impure person from Raising a Banner > if eir ribbon ownership allows, even though e's prevented from winning. > It's unclear whether the ribbon reset is a result of raising the banner on > its own, or whether failure to win prevents the reset. > > > Evidence: > > From Rule 2438/18 (Power=3) Ribbons: >> While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a >> Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. >> That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set. > From Rule 2556/1 (Power=3) Penalties: >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win >> the game. Seems pretty solidly true, and possibly a good example of why winning should be an action instead of an event. -- nch Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager, Pirate
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Is death inevitable?
sure i favour this
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:29 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I CFJ: "The game of Agora will never end."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> > Rule 101/17 (Power=4)
> > The Game of Agora
> >
> > Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
> > with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of
> > these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be
> > won, but the game never ends.
> >
> > Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> }
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> This case asks the court to evaluate a statement about the future. While
> this would normally easily get a DISMISS verdict (or similar), Rule 101
> asserts that "the game never ends", which is statement that is
> relatively close to the one of this case. This is especially significant
> because Rule 101 is the Rule of the highest precedence - it is at the
> highest possible power for a Rule and has the lowest number; any
> statement in it is thus the Truth for the purposes of the game.
>
> Of course, Rule 101 could be repealed, along with Rule 1698 (Agora Is A
> Nomic). Doing this would permit the game to be ended by proposal. If we
> were to assume that didn't happen, the inevitable heat death of the
> universe is also coming for us, although even that might not end the
> game, given the precedent in CFJ 3580.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] ¿Puedo realizar acciónes en español?
Pienso que la declaración está efectiva por qué es probable que una proporción significativa de los miembros de Agora hablen español y esta acción está descrita en el texto en inglés. Si la explanación en inglés no está, pienso que la situación esté diferente. > On Jun 2, 2020, at 21:34, ATMunn via agora-business > wrote: > > Yo transfiero una moneda a Agora. > > CFJ: En la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora. > > CFJ: In the above statement, I issued a Call for Judgement on whether > I transferred a coin to Agora in the statement preceding that one. > > Caller's Arguments (first [attempted] CFJ): If the second CFJ is judged > TRUE (arguments below), then the first attempted CFJ is, in fact, a CFJ. > By the precedent set by the second CFJ, the first should then be judged > TRUE. The only thing preventing it from being judged TRUE if the second > one is also is the fact that when put into Google Translate, the word > "moneda," intended to mean "coin," is translated as "currency." Because > of this, I think that the outcome of this CFJ should probably be linked > to the outcome of CFJ 3838. > > Caller's Arguments (second CFJ): Nothing in the rules states that > statements of intent must be in English. Rule 478 states that a person > performs an action by "unambiguously and clearly specifying the action > and announcing that e performs it." Though not everyone may be able to > understand Spanish, it is clear that the message is in Spanish, and, > when translated online, the message unambiguously and clearly specifies > the action. For this reason, I think that this CFJ should be judged > TRUE. However, an argument for judging it FALSE is that Agora has, since > its beginning, always been conducted in English. The actual statement > itself in its current form, therefore, could be interpreted as being > very unclear and ambiguous, since most readers will not understand its > meaning without a translator. > > [There's a good chance this has been tried before, but I thought I would > go ahead with it anyway. I opted not to try to use the Spanish for "Call > for Judgment" because a) I'm not that good at Spanish and b) it would > probably be more confusing. CFJ is an accepted standard abbreviation, so > I decided to stick with that.]
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3830 Judged FALSE [Attn: Arbitor]
> In order to determine which of these scenarios occurred, we need to look at > R105, "Rule Changes". First, we can eliminate scenario 1. While Rule 105 > doesn't specifically lay out what occurs during amendment, we can assume > that the former text of the rule no longer exists because it is fully > replaced by the new text. As a result, the old text would not have > sufficient power to amend a rule, therefore Scenario 1 is not valid. I just happened across CFJ 3419, which addresses a similar issue and comes to the same conclusion. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] regarding Alexis's CoE on the SLR/FLR
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 7:41 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ: "The entity once known as Rule 2601 is a rule." Argument: One of the universal principles of modifiable systems of rules is that once a rule (or portion of a rule) is removed from the system, that rule (or portion of a rule) is no longer effective. Therefore, "Boo clauses" are not effective. —Warrigal, who wishes to point out that, although not effective, they are definitely hilarious
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] regarding Alexis's CoE on the SLR/FLR
On 4/12/20 8:12 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > Arguments: After extremely careful and definitely not cursory thought, I > think that the first sentence of R2601 succeeds. We generally accept the > passive voice as being acceptable for rules to cause actions to occur, so I > see no reason this shouldn't function here. The cause of R2601's amendment > is, clearly, itself. > > -Alexis Counterargument: per R2141/12 (at the time): "A rule ... is always taking effect". Once the text has been amended out of the rule, that text is no longer there to be taking effect, so how can it possibly cause a rule-change? -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] regarding Alexis's CoE on the SLR/FLR
On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 19:41, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I CFJ: "The entity once known as Rule 2601 is a rule." > Arguments: After extremely careful and definitely not cursory thought, I think that the first sentence of R2601 succeeds. We generally accept the passive voice as being acceptable for rules to cause actions to occur, so I see no reason this shouldn't function here. The cause of R2601's amendment is, clearly, itself. -Alexis
Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On 4/6/2020 7:39 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > And I certainly don't remember that second paragraph. However necessary it > may be (to avoid AI=1 proposals defining higher powered rules to mean their > opposite or whatever), it reads like actual nonsense at first glance. > Although I do remember the direct forward reasoning bit so maybe I'm just > hallucinating that any of it used to be different. It's definitely hard reading and a mishmash of adding concepts one by one. The first half of that paragraph was written in 2013. The second half of that second paragraph (beginning with "but may constructively...") was added in 2018 to allow *some* definitional stuff to appear in lower-powered rules.
Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:36 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via > agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: >> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they >> should >> > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to >> > sustain the judgement. >> >> Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good), and >> R217 really isn't/shouldn't be used as a set of factors in a legal test. >> >> The first paragraph simply describes the tone and tenor of reasoning we >> like to use in judgement, in particular just to suggest (without >> requiring) that we try to remain relatively consistent (use of game >> custom/past judgements), to imply that if you reach an absurd result using >> logical formalism or other procedural logic on texts, you're allowed to >> short-circuit that with some common sense (in other words, that we resolve >> textual arguments "not like robots"), and finally to be clear that the >> goal of judgement is not to, say, crater the game with paradox, but to >> keep the game enjoyable, fair etc. (i.e. "the good of the game"). It >> doesn't need to be used as a factor checklist. Your first judgement >> followed those guidelines without explicitly spelling them out, IMO. >> >> The second paragraph is partly to diffuse/limit paradox judgements, and in >> general is explicit defense against different types of specific >> definitional scams that have been used over time (with the unfortunate >> side-effect of requiring definitions to be higher-powered than they might >> otherwise need to be). >> >> -G. >> >> > I actually didn't read rule 217 before writing this. I think the 217 that > I remember was more "hard" with the factors and didn't use the word > "augmented". > -- > From R. Lee > And I certainly don't remember that second paragraph. However necessary it may be (to avoid AI=1 proposals defining higher powered rules to mean their opposite or whatever), it reads like actual nonsense at first glance. Although I do remember the direct forward reasoning bit so maybe I'm just hallucinating that any of it used to be different. -- >From R. Lee
Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they > should > > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to > > sustain the judgement. > > Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good), and > R217 really isn't/shouldn't be used as a set of factors in a legal test. > > The first paragraph simply describes the tone and tenor of reasoning we > like to use in judgement, in particular just to suggest (without > requiring) that we try to remain relatively consistent (use of game > custom/past judgements), to imply that if you reach an absurd result using > logical formalism or other procedural logic on texts, you're allowed to > short-circuit that with some common sense (in other words, that we resolve > textual arguments "not like robots"), and finally to be clear that the > goal of judgement is not to, say, crater the game with paradox, but to > keep the game enjoyable, fair etc. (i.e. "the good of the game"). It > doesn't need to be used as a factor checklist. Your first judgement > followed those guidelines without explicitly spelling them out, IMO. > > The second paragraph is partly to diffuse/limit paradox judgements, and in > general is explicit defense against different types of specific > definitional scams that have been used over time (with the unfortunate > side-effect of requiring definitions to be higher-powered than they might > otherwise need to be). > > -G. > > I actually didn't read rule 217 before writing this. I think the 217 that I remember was more "hard" with the factors and didn't use the word "augmented". -- >From R. Lee
Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they should > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to > sustain the judgement. Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good), and R217 really isn't/shouldn't be used as a set of factors in a legal test. The first paragraph simply describes the tone and tenor of reasoning we like to use in judgement, in particular just to suggest (without requiring) that we try to remain relatively consistent (use of game custom/past judgements), to imply that if you reach an absurd result using logical formalism or other procedural logic on texts, you're allowed to short-circuit that with some common sense (in other words, that we resolve textual arguments "not like robots"), and finally to be clear that the goal of judgement is not to, say, crater the game with paradox, but to keep the game enjoyable, fair etc. (i.e. "the good of the game"). It doesn't need to be used as a factor checklist. Your first judgement followed those guidelines without explicitly spelling them out, IMO. The second paragraph is partly to diffuse/limit paradox judgements, and in general is explicit defense against different types of specific definitional scams that have been used over time (with the unfortunate side-effect of requiring definitions to be higher-powered than they might otherwise need to be). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 02:04, Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal > or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so > ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure English. Although I could have used > other factors in resolving the case, I opted to use "common sense" (an > enumerated factor), that being I resolved the case on my first initial > reading of the sentence at issue. I have made arguments that the side of > "any" being "one" has the better of it textually, but as a backup I think I > am entitled to resolve the case using common sense. I am happy to slightly > edit these explanatory paragraphs and append them to the judgement if you > would like. If you believe that the statement is sufficiently ambiguous as to require a fallback to R2125 principles, this should be a full part of the judgment. I stand by my request for a motion to reconsider.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure English. Although I could have used other factors in resolving the case, I opted to use "common sense" (an enumerated factor), that being I resolved the case on my first initial reading of the sentence at issue. I have made arguments that the side of "any" being "one" has the better of it textually, but as a backup I think I am entitled to resolve the case using common sense. I am happy to slightly edit these explanatory paragraphs and append them to the judgement if you would like. On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:01 PM Rebecca wrote: > ""A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple > within" > > I think this sentence means the same thing as my example sentence. If "a > recipient can eat any apple within the shipment", they can eat every single > apple because any is universal here, the apple is arbitrarily selected. The > reason it is universal is because, as my judgement notes, any is almost > always universal in positive sentences like this one. If a recipient > CANNOT eat just a single apple, it is untrue that they CAN eat "any" apple. > > This logic was not the logic of my judgement but it would sustain it. > > But I think in this case "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer > any item included in a lot in that Auction" is a phrase that is different > to "a recipient cannot eat any apple within the shipment" because in this > context we are _really_ talking about the item itself being nontransferable > by law, although the auctioneer is the actor in this sentence as > grammatically written. Whereas in your example we seem to be talking a lot > more about whether any theoretical recipient could actually eat it, which > makes your sentence a very different sentence from "if the apple cannot be > eaten". In this case, I don't think "the auctioneer cannot transfer" is > different to "any lot can be transferred". > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that >> the >> > other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple >> example >> > seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good >> judgement! >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> >> I'm not sure I agree. In my view, there is a clear distinguishing factor. >> In the apple example, the "cannot" appears after the "any", while in the >> rule at issue, it appears before. This is a critical distinction. The >> corresponding apple phrase would be "A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if >> a recipient cannot eat any apple within". If I may make appeals to the >> principles of first-order logic, (using words instead of symbols, for the >> sake of those not used to logic notation), suppose we let P(x) mean "x >> can >> be eaten" and Q mean "the shipment can be disposed of" (with x ranging >> over >> all apples in the shipment). >> >> Then the judge's example is clearly equivalent to "If there exists an x >> such that P(x) is false, then Q". This is logically equivalent to "If, for >> all x, P(x) is true, then Q". But by contrast, if we have the statement >> "If >> there does not exist an x such that P(x) is true, then Q", the logical >> equivalent is "If, for all x, P(x) is false, then Q." >> >> Breaking down the English of "if a recipient cannot eat any apple within", >> "eat any apple within" is a relative clause that is negated by "cannot". >> In >> my opinion, this most strongly resembles "If there does not exist an x >> such >> that P(x) is true". To interpret it otherwise requires either changing the >> way that "cannot" binds or interpreting "any" as a universal (for all) >> quantifier, rather than existential (there exists) quantifier. I contend >> that this is not the most straightforward way to convert the English into >> the language of logic, and once we have done so, the conclusion of TRUE on >> the CFJ must follow. >> >> I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3826; the >> above needs to be addressed, at minimum. >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
""A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple within" I think this sentence means the same thing as my example sentence. If "a recipient can eat any apple within the shipment", they can eat every single apple because any is universal here, the apple is arbitrarily selected. The reason it is universal is because, as my judgement notes, any is almost always universal in positive sentences like this one. If a recipient CANNOT eat just a single apple, it is untrue that they CAN eat "any" apple. This logic was not the logic of my judgement but it would sustain it. But I think in this case "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" is a phrase that is different to "a recipient cannot eat any apple within the shipment" because in this context we are _really_ talking about the item itself being nontransferable by law, although the auctioneer is the actor in this sentence as grammatically written. Whereas in your example we seem to be talking a lot more about whether any theoretical recipient could actually eat it, which makes your sentence a very different sentence from "if the apple cannot be eaten". In this case, I don't think "the auctioneer cannot transfer" is different to "any lot can be transferred". On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that > the > > other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple > example > > seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good > judgement! > > > > -Aris > > > > I'm not sure I agree. In my view, there is a clear distinguishing factor. > In the apple example, the "cannot" appears after the "any", while in the > rule at issue, it appears before. This is a critical distinction. The > corresponding apple phrase would be "A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if > a recipient cannot eat any apple within". If I may make appeals to the > principles of first-order logic, (using words instead of symbols, for the > sake of those not used to logic notation), suppose we let P(x) mean "x can > be eaten" and Q mean "the shipment can be disposed of" (with x ranging over > all apples in the shipment). > > Then the judge's example is clearly equivalent to "If there exists an x > such that P(x) is false, then Q". This is logically equivalent to "If, for > all x, P(x) is true, then Q". But by contrast, if we have the statement "If > there does not exist an x such that P(x) is true, then Q", the logical > equivalent is "If, for all x, P(x) is false, then Q." > > Breaking down the English of "if a recipient cannot eat any apple within", > "eat any apple within" is a relative clause that is negated by "cannot". In > my opinion, this most strongly resembles "If there does not exist an x such > that P(x) is true". To interpret it otherwise requires either changing the > way that "cannot" binds or interpreting "any" as a universal (for all) > quantifier, rather than existential (there exists) quantifier. I contend > that this is not the most straightforward way to convert the English into > the language of logic, and once we have done so, the conclusion of TRUE on > the CFJ must follow. > > I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3826; the > above needs to be addressed, at minimum. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
I just realized I top-posted. I apologize. -Aris On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 8:46 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that > the other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple > example seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good > judgement! > > -Aris > > On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> A zombie auction can be terminated "if the Auction has not ended and the >> Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in >> that Auction" (as says rule 2552). In this case, one lot could not be >> transferred. The question is whether the auction can end if one lot cannot >> be transferred, or only if all of them cannot be transferred. >> >> The word "any" can mean each. In most legal contexts it does mean each(see >> SAS Institute v Iancu). But that only tends to be the case when it is used >> with "a singular noun in affirmative contexts" (this is quoting SAS >> Institute). In other contexts, any means "one or more selected items in a >> group". The sentence at issue here involves a negative context, and in >> such >> context, a legal dictate tends to apply when one or more of the items does >> not satisfy a condition, rather than when all of them do not. Let me >> provide an example sentence. "The supplier can embargo a certain region if >> we cannot receive safety assurances from any country included in the >> region". That sentence is basically a mirror of rule 2552, and it's clear >> to all that one country failing to provide assurances is enough for the >> whole region to be subject to embargo. >> >> Alexis offers a sentence similar to "I can't understand any of your >> questions". In this case, any clearly means each, all questions are >> incomprehensible to the speaker. That example sentence, though, is much >> further away from the rule itself than mine, and mine disproves the rule >> offered that "any" after a negated verb always means "each". Instead, I >> think, it is purely contextual. But take this sentence "if any item can't >> be transferred, the auction can be cancelled". That's just a simplified >> and >> switched up version of the actual rule at issue, but I don't think anyone >> can read that at first scan and think that _every_ item must be unable to >> be transferred >> >> I have said before in CFJs that we resolve textual arguments not like >> robots, but with the reading of reasonable English speakers in mind. I am >> not pointed to any grammatical canon which clearly resolves this case. >> Indeed, looking at grammatical explanations of the word "any" available to >> me, two different meanings seemed to be distinguishable often only by >> context. My first reading of the rule 2552 is that one inability to >> transfer nixes the whole auction. Take this sentence "A worker CAN dispose >> of a shipment of apples if any apple within it cannot be eaten". In that >> case, just like this one, one rotten apple spoils the bunch, consistent >> with, although not strictly required by, rules of grammar. >> >> On the basis of natural grammar, my first reading as a reasonable speaker, >> and the context of one wrong thing being involved in a lot of multiple, >> inextricable things (just like my regions or apples examples), I judge CFJ >> 3826 FALSE >> >> -- >> From R. Lee >> >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that the other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple example seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good judgement! -Aris On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 5:56 PM Rebecca via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > A zombie auction can be terminated "if the Auction has not ended and the > Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in > that Auction" (as says rule 2552). In this case, one lot could not be > transferred. The question is whether the auction can end if one lot cannot > be transferred, or only if all of them cannot be transferred. > > The word "any" can mean each. In most legal contexts it does mean each(see > SAS Institute v Iancu). But that only tends to be the case when it is used > with "a singular noun in affirmative contexts" (this is quoting SAS > Institute). In other contexts, any means "one or more selected items in a > group". The sentence at issue here involves a negative context, and in such > context, a legal dictate tends to apply when one or more of the items does > not satisfy a condition, rather than when all of them do not. Let me > provide an example sentence. "The supplier can embargo a certain region if > we cannot receive safety assurances from any country included in the > region". That sentence is basically a mirror of rule 2552, and it's clear > to all that one country failing to provide assurances is enough for the > whole region to be subject to embargo. > > Alexis offers a sentence similar to "I can't understand any of your > questions". In this case, any clearly means each, all questions are > incomprehensible to the speaker. That example sentence, though, is much > further away from the rule itself than mine, and mine disproves the rule > offered that "any" after a negated verb always means "each". Instead, I > think, it is purely contextual. But take this sentence "if any item can't > be transferred, the auction can be cancelled". That's just a simplified and > switched up version of the actual rule at issue, but I don't think anyone > can read that at first scan and think that _every_ item must be unable to > be transferred > > I have said before in CFJs that we resolve textual arguments not like > robots, but with the reading of reasonable English speakers in mind. I am > not pointed to any grammatical canon which clearly resolves this case. > Indeed, looking at grammatical explanations of the word "any" available to > me, two different meanings seemed to be distinguishable often only by > context. My first reading of the rule 2552 is that one inability to > transfer nixes the whole auction. Take this sentence "A worker CAN dispose > of a shipment of apples if any apple within it cannot be eaten". In that > case, just like this one, one rotten apple spoils the bunch, consistent > with, although not strictly required by, rules of grammar. > > On the basis of natural grammar, my first reading as a reasonable speaker, > and the context of one wrong thing being involved in a lot of multiple, > inextricable things (just like my regions or apples examples), I judge CFJ > 3826 FALSE > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Follow-on about official reports
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 7:30 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 20:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I favor these. (Unless someone else has a deep desire to tackle them or > > Alexis would prefer an additional opinion other than the writer of CFJ > > 3798; I've actually pondered this issue quite a few times in passing and > > never got around to calling a CFJ on it). > > I considered barring you just to get another take, but honestly, I > think that the jurisprudence is more interesting when we develop > specialists in areas of law. +1 -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Follow-on about official reports
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 20:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I favor these. (Unless someone else has a deep desire to tackle them or > Alexis would prefer an additional opinion other than the writer of CFJ > 3798; I've actually pondered this issue quite a few times in passing and > never got around to calling a CFJ on it). I considered barring you just to get another take, but honestly, I think that the jurisprudence is more interesting when we develop specialists in areas of law. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3821
On Mon, 9 Mar 2020 at 12:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/9/2020 7:49 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > I judge CFJ 3821 FALSE, per my arguments. I award myself Blue Glitter. > > > > -Alexis > > > > I'm assuming you mean these arguments: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-March/057018.html Yes.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3821
On 3/9/2020 7:49 AM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > I judge CFJ 3821 FALSE, per my arguments. I award myself Blue Glitter. > > -Alexis > I'm assuming you mean these arguments: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-March/057018.html
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3813 judged FALSE
I think it's great that a relatively recent CfJ got overturned like this,
because I believe that challenging past views for the better, is good.
A bit of a thought experiment, because this situation reminds me a lot of
the Ship of Theseus:
- Theseus nomic is made (which has pretty much the same text as Agora minus
the Contract stuff), with Aguy Bguy and Cguy. Contracts aren't defined.
- Then, Contracts are made and defined as Agora has it now in Theseus nomic.
- Aguy Bguy and Cguy gradually leave, as Dguy Eguy and Gguy join,
registering and "agreeing to be bound" to Agora, a requirement that
Contracts also have - to agree to be bound by them.
- Now, like a contract, Dguy Eguy and Gguy have agreed to be bound by an
agreement, with such an agreement having existed while Contracts as a rule
has existed like any other contract would need.
Is Theseus nomic a contract now, or not?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 7:24 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract.
>
> As noted by the caller, CFJ 3706 (Feb 9-14, 2019) asked a similar
> question. It was judged TRUE by G.
>
> As I see it, the questions before me are:
> 1) Was CFJ 3706 judged correctly?
> 2) Has there been a change in circumstances since then that would affect
> that ruling?
>
> I’ll start with the second question. It appears that the version of the
> rule in question there was 8139/20. (The court admonishes G. for failing to
> include revision numbers in his rule citations, by the way.) The current
> rule, 8139/22, is largely similar, with the following changes:
> * Lowered the minimum party count to one.
> * "may make an agreement” -> "may publicly make an agreement”
> * “agreement between parties” -> “consent of all parties” throughout
> * The new stuff about provisions being public and the body/annex
> distinction
> * A requirement that things be permitted "explicitly and unambiguously”
> * Clarity in wording about asset changes
>
> Nothing here changes the fundamental nature of what a contract is. The
> addition of “publicly” is closest, but the agreements that form Agora were
> all (AFAIK) made publicly, so that doesn’t change anything.
>
> Therefore, this CFJ is TRUE iff 3706 was correctly judged TRUE. This
> leaves open the question of whether I should overturn that judgement. I
> certainly *want* to—Agora as a contract is unintuitive and inconvenient to
> deal with as Notary, and results in contract rules applying to Agora, which
> is weird. But can I?
>
> There is one point in 3706’s logic that at least isn’t clearly to me. I’ve
> reproduced it below: {
> - R1742 states that “Any group of two or more consenting persons (the
> parties) may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that
> it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract.” This simply applied the label “contract” to
> this type of agreement.
>
> - Therefore, the “contract” label applies to Agora.
> }
>
> The R1742 quote in question could be interpreted in one of two ways:
> 1) It simply describes an existing thing that people can do "may make an
> agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them
> and be governed by the rules” and gives it a name.
> 2) It defines a new type of game action (forming a contract), analogous to
> creating a proposal, calling a CFJ, or any other action that is only
> possible because a rule defines it as such.
>
> G. went with #1 in his judgement, but did not explain eir decision or
> address the possibility of the second interpretation within the judgement.
> Before the judgement, G. initially seemed to believe #2 (
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-February/053314.html):
> {
> Here, contracts are defined by how people MAY create them. This rule is
> not written retroactively (e.g. "all agreements that people have made in
> the
> past that fit these criteria are defined as contracts"), but such that it
> takes a specific, initial act of agreement to create contract. The Rules
> predate this creation mechanism. And Agora was not re-created by this
> creation mechanism since then. Therefore it is not a contract, in the
> R1742
> sense.
> }
>
> D Margaux responded with something vaguely resembling #1 (
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-February/053315.html):
> {
> I don’t see why it needs to have been created as a contract to be a
> contract. To me, it seems like “contract” is merely a term defined to
> encompass a certain class of entities (viz., agreements between players
> that are to be governed by the Rules). That class appears on its face to
> include Agora itself. Not sure why under the text of the Rule it makes any
> difference that Agora (and the agreement(s) that created Agora) preexisted
> the class defined by the Rule. Still seems like Agora is a member of that
> class of entities.
> }
>
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3815 judged TRUE (퐸퓃푔퓁풾퓈풽 풾퓃 풶 풸표표퓁 풻표퓃퓉 풾퓈 퓈퓉풾퓁퓁 퐸퓃푔퓁풾퓈풽.)
On 2/20/2020 8:27 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > G. wrote: >> keep the nonstandard characters limited > > "Nonstandard"? Unicode has been around since before I was born - seems > to me your software has had plenty of time to update... :) :) To be clear I wasn't talking about my issues - I was trying to make the point that we'd worked around display issues for years in Agora and generally left that up to each reader to sort out (like Cuddle Beam suggested/ judged). But the problem with accessibility tools that sukil mentions (that yes, in a perfect world, should be supported as "standard" by now) is new to me - if there's limited reasonable-effort solutions for someone who needs or prefers to use those tools, it's worth considering. -G.
