Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time > they were published, Looking at judge G.'s "BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE" at the bottom of the judgement, it looks like there actually was a ratification of a document explicitly talking about the past, not just about the current state.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 10:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!! Thanks :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:21 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote: > >> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. > > > > ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make > > the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly > > people's voting power) depend on so many "soft" factors? Including > > the legality of actions, whether someone "more likely than not" > > performed an action (according to whom?), and even whether or not a > > fine is "blatantly and obviously unsuited". > > I think it’s important for there to be some strict conditions for the > POSSIBILITY of the referee blotting someone, precisely because it > affects voting power. We wouldn’t want it to be POSSIBLE for the Referee > to ILLEGALLY issue 40 blots to each player and exile em or negate their > voting power, and create a dictatorship that way. > It might be a good idea to amend the rule so that failing some > requirements make the fine IMPOSSIBLE, and failing other requirements > enable a player to remove the blots by some process (like through a > CFJ). I’m not sure which requirements should be in which category though. This has been a long-term structural question. We've always needed a "quick punishment" system for trivially-true crimes (e.g. late reports) and a more deliberative system to grind out justice. We have called these things like Infractions vs Crimes, or "plea bargain" vs "criminal trial". If something seems like a quick punishment but the defendant wants longer justice, the question of "what punishment status should be applied in the interim" is a tricky one. The "blot people out of the game" has in fact happened before. On the other hand, blots prevent winning. So if the defendant can delay a punishment by calling for a long trial, e might win in the mean time (I'm thinking of cases where the win conditions were independent of the alleged crime). So there's a balance to be struck. We once had a long and complicated process of Judicial Orders (punishment was applied via an order) but orders could be stayed, vacated by another judge, etc. Dueling order battles were fun! Sorta. But very very confusing, especially when we started ordering each other not to issue further orders. I think, in balance, I agree with D. Margaux that the "make it IMPOSSIBLE and adjust game understanding retroactively if a CFJ comes up" is a good way to go. It tips the balance away from being either too much favoring the defendant versus the prosecution and the expense of some overall game uncertainty - so far so minor. A second option might be a short delay - The Referee applies a punishment without Objection from the defendant, but the only method the defendant can use to Object is to demand trial (i.e. call a CFJ). The Trial would be required to apply the default punishment while the referee could offer a lesser sentence for not objecting. The main issue with this is it requires some follow-up from the referee for each offense. A third thing - specifically on the voting side - is to say that voting results can only be CoEd the result (ADOPTED vs REJECTED) and not differences in the vote count that don't affect the outcome (this is useful in many contexts, actually!)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM James Cook wrote: > I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this > case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome? > I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem > helpful. Unless you have a direct material conflict of interest, this generally isn't a reason not to judge. We're too small a community, everyone ends up having opinions, and we don't want to stifle discussion by saying "you expressed an earlier opinion on this, no judging for you!" On the subject of community size - welcome back, o and omd!!! -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> Hmm. I admit that I am not sure I follow this. But I think we are in > agreement about the ultimate outcome? Yes, I agree that you own no blots. I'm curious to see how H. Judge G. rules on your original CFJ reintroduced by Aris.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Mon, 2019-05-27 at 04:25 +, James Cook wrote: > I'm happy to try being on a court. How does weekend vs. day court > work? I have the most time on weekends, but if a case comes in on the > weekend I might end up dealing with it during the week depending on > circumstances. So really I don't mind getting a CFJ assigned at any > time during the week, if others don't mind me taking advantage of the > 7 days available. It's not related to time of week, it's related to case load. Day court judges get most of the cases, weekend court judges get occasional cases now and then. (This is all Arbitor's discretion, thus isn't precisely defined, and is a system set up by the Arbitor rather than an inherent part of the rules.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 00:38, Aris Merchant wrote: > Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or > judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to > make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a > good way to get more involved in gameplay. I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome? I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem helpful. I'm happy to try being on a court. How does weekend vs. day court work? I have the most time on weekends, but if a case comes in on the weekend I might end up dealing with it during the week depending on circumstances. So really I don't mind getting a CFJ assigned at any time during the week, if others don't mind me taking advantage of the 7 days available.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player > who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out: > R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We > have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean > anything outside the Rules. > > But, "at the time..." does mean something outside the Rules, so I > think it's reasonable for the judge's first step to be to unwrap that > as the equivalent statement: R(time CFJ was called*, [action A was > EFFECTIVE]). If the Rules say that's wrong, then of course it's wrong, > but if the Rules are silent on the matter it seems reasonable. I think I messed up my example. I shouldn't have focused on the time the CFJ was called; that's not relevant to my exposition. Add one more step: the judge expands R(time CFJ was called, [action A was EFFECTIVE]) as R(time CFJ was called, [at the time action A was attempted, the attempt was successful]) which becomes, unless the Rules say otherwise, R(the time action A was attempted, [the attempt was successful]) that's what's relevant here, I think. Again, the point is just to say that there is a consistent world-view where the gamestate doesn't include whether past actions were effective, but intents are still fixed and everything works pretty much as we expect. And this is the way I was assuming the game works.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right). > > G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change > anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the > report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN retroactively > change the EFFECTIVENESS of actions taken during the time between the > report’s publication and its later self-ratification—I think that is > consistent with G.’s decision. > > It is also demonstrated by the failure of my recent attempted PARADOX scam. > > I had a PARADOX scam that hinged on an ambiguity about who the Prime Minister > was—me or ATMunn. If intents remained broken then it was one of us; if > intents were retroactively fixed then it was the other one of us. I tried to > create a PARADOX by using the Manifesto power to distribute a proposal that > would fix intents retroactively. Trying to resolve that Agoran decision would > create an infinite loop where the identity of the PM would cycle around and > the EFFECTIVENESS of the distribution-by-Manifesto cycled too. > > It was foiled by the retroactive effect of a self-ratified ADoP report. > > At the time I issued the attempted Manifesto, the ADoP report had been > published but had NOT self-ratified. If I had CoE’d it before ratification, > then the identity of the PM would be ambiguous and so the Manifesto attempt > would have had ambiguous EFFECTIVENESS. But I missed the ADoP report and it > later self ratified—causing the Manifesto attempt to be unambiguously > INEFFECTIVE. Which was very, very frustrating. > > The facts are recounted in detail in CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724, and 3725. > > I think that conclusively shows that the attempted blot levy was INEFFECTIVE. My complaint with this argument is the following. When R1551 says: "...to what [the gamestate] would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified..." this is talking about a hypothetical sequence of events, and yes, during that hypothetical sequence of events, certain actions that we previously considered to be EFFECTIVE are hypothetically considered to be INEFFECTIVE, and vice versa. But that does not imply that the hypothetical past is itself part of the gamestate. If the history of EFFECTIVE and INEFFECTIVE actions is part of the gamestate, then I agree that the effect of R1551 is also to change that history. But it does not need to be part of the gamestate in order for R1551 to have the effects we generally rely on it for. When we fixed intents, this was my interpretation of what happened: * Proposal 8164 refers to "what [the gamestate] would have beeen..." in a similar manner to R1551. * In that hypothetical alternate history, the EFFECTIVENESS of actions is different from reality, and therefore the gamestate (switches, ownership of entities, probably other things...) ends up different. * Proposal 8164 changes the gamestate --- all those switches, ownerships, etc --- to how it ended up in that hypothetical alternate history. I don't think CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724 or 3725 directly address whether or not the EFFECTIVENESS (or POSSIBILITY) of past actions is changed after ratification: * I think 3722 was resolved without reference to ratification. * 3723 is present-tense; it's about whether the current (at time of CFJ) gamestate allows an action. It does discuss a hypothetical game history, but does not assert that that hypothetical history actually happened. * 3724 did not involve ratification. * 3722 was about the EFFECTIVENESS of an action being affected by ratification. However, I think in that case the document ratified before the action was even attempted, so there's no question of changing the past. So, it's still unclear to me whether the past is part of the gamestate. I see no reason why it should be. Here's a pitch explaining that, at least, this viewpoint is self-consistent: Let's define R(T, X) to mean: at time T, the Rules said that X was true. In this definition, I intend R(T, X) to be fundamentally a statement about reality, not directly governed by the Rules; it means that a diligent player familiar with the rules of Agora, sitting down at time T and carefully studying the situation, would conclude that X is true at that time. When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out: R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean anything outside the Rules. But, "at the time..." does mean something outside the Rules, so I think it's reasonable for the judge's first step to be to unwrap that as the equivalent statement: R(time CFJ was called*, [action A was EFFECTIVE]). If the Rules say that's wrong, then of course it's wrong, but if the Rules are silent on the matter it seems reasonable. *More pedantically: the judge
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what was actually ratified was limited by self-ratification:
>
>> I agree with scshunt that history CAN be subject to ratification, but
>> *not* that it is subject to self-ratification. That is, the self-
>> ratification of a report fact ("as of this date, scshunt was a player")
>> does not ratify the state of play the instant before that report was
>> made. In particular, R2139 explicitly only governs the set of players
>> at a particular instant (the instant of the report), and R2138 only
>> governs the older of each office at a particular instant. The strict
>> wording of *exactly* what is self-ratified (state) precludes any
>> ratification of when or how that state came to be, historically.
>>
>> An explicit ratification process could do so, by (e.g. without
>> objection) ratifying that the statement in question was true at an
>> earlier date from the report.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
>
> ...However, in retrospect, I'm not sure that judgement actually makes
> sense. Rule 1551 states (and stated at the time):
>
> When a public 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; [...]
>
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
> they were published, but when they were ratified, the gamestate was
> set to "what it would be" if publishing them had changed things to
> make them true. If the gamestate includes the past, "what it would
> be" necessarily includes the fact that they were true when they were
> published (or at least immediately afterward).
>
> Not sure what to take away from that. I don't see any more recent
> CFJs about the issue.
I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right).
G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change
anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the
report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN retroactively
change the EFFECTIVENESS of actions taken during the time between the report’s
publication and its later self-ratification—I think that is consistent with
G.’s decision.
It is also demonstrated by the failure of my recent attempted PARADOX scam.
I had a PARADOX scam that hinged on an ambiguity about who the Prime Minister
was—me or ATMunn. If intents remained broken then it was one of us; if intents
were retroactively fixed then it was the other one of us. I tried to create a
PARADOX by using the Manifesto power to distribute a proposal that would fix
intents retroactively. Trying to resolve that Agoran decision would create an
infinite loop where the identity of the PM would cycle around and the
EFFECTIVENESS of the distribution-by-Manifesto cycled too.
It was foiled by the retroactive effect of a self-ratified ADoP report.
At the time I issued the attempted Manifesto, the ADoP report had been
published but had NOT self-ratified. If I had CoE’d it before ratification,
then the identity of the PM would be ambiguous and so the Manifesto attempt
would have had ambiguous EFFECTIVENESS. But I missed the ADoP report and it
later self ratified—causing the Manifesto attempt to be unambiguously
INEFFECTIVE. Which was very, very frustrating.
The facts are recounted in detail in CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724, and 3725.
I think that conclusively shows that the attempted blot levy was INEFFECTIVE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote: > and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly people's voting power) depend on so many "soft" factors? Including the legality of actions, whether someone "more likely than not" performed an action (according to whom?), and even whether or not a fine is "blatantly and obviously unsuited".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote:
> For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really
> defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the
> facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in
> the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would
> imply (a) is false.
I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
complex than I remembered.
In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
of what was actually ratified was limited by self-ratification:
> I agree with scshunt that history CAN be subject to ratification, but
> *not* that it is subject to self-ratification. That is, the self-
> ratification of a report fact ("as of this date, scshunt was a player")
> does not ratify the state of play the instant before that report was
> made. In particular, R2139 explicitly only governs the set of players
> at a particular instant (the instant of the report), and R2138 only
> governs the older of each office at a particular instant. The strict
> wording of *exactly* what is self-ratified (state) precludes any
> ratification of when or how that state came to be, historically.
>
> An explicit ratification process could do so, by (e.g. without
> objection) ratifying that the statement in question was true at an
> earlier date from the report.
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
...However, in retrospect, I'm not sure that judgement actually makes
sense. Rule 1551 states (and stated at the time):
When a public 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; [...]
The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
they were published, but when they were ratified, the gamestate was
set to "what it would be" if publishing them had changed things to
make them true. If the gamestate includes the past, "what it would
be" necessarily includes the fact that they were true when they were
published (or at least immediately afterward).
Not sure what to take away from that. I don't see any more recent
CFJs about the issue.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a good way to get more involved in gameplay. -Aris On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux wrote: > > > On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > > > > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > > > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > > > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. > > > > Why not? > > > > Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) > committed by publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is > changed to what it would have been if the report were as true and accurate > as possible. That means that the gamestate also changes whether a violation > was committed—because that’s part of the gamestate itself. > > > > To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It > would be INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true > and accurate at the time they were published. Upon ratification the > gamestate is changed to what it would be if the reports were as true and > accurate as possible (which is 100% true and accurate). That means that the > game state is changed to make any blot levying INEFFECTIVE. > > Unsolicited thoughts: > > I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the > gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be > judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE. > > Before you ratified the statement, I think it's clear Aris's attempt > was EFFECTIVE according to the Rules. I think there are then two > questions: (a) did your ratification create some legal fiction that > the attempt was INEFFECTIVE, in contradiction to reality; and (b) if > so, should the CFJ's judge respect that legal fiction? > > For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really > defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the > facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in > the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would > imply (a) is false. > > For (b), R591 says: "TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually > and logically true" (and similarly for FALSE). If other Rules say > something that contradicts reality, should "factually ..." refer to > this legal fiction or to reality? I don't see any reason the rules > should override reality in this case. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux wrote: > > On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. > > Why not? > > Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) committed > by publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is changed to > what it would have been if the report were as true and accurate as possible. > That means that the gamestate also changes whether a violation was > committed—because that’s part of the gamestate itself. > > To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It would > be INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true and > accurate at the time they were published. Upon ratification the gamestate is > changed to what it would be if the reports were as true and accurate as > possible (which is 100% true and accurate). That means that the game state is > changed to make any blot levying INEFFECTIVE. Unsolicited thoughts: I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE. Before you ratified the statement, I think it's clear Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE according to the Rules. I think there are then two questions: (a) did your ratification create some legal fiction that the attempt was INEFFECTIVE, in contradiction to reality; and (b) if so, should the CFJ's judge respect that legal fiction? For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would imply (a) is false. For (b), R591 says: "TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true" (and similarly for FALSE). If other Rules say something that contradicts reality, should "factually ..." refer to this legal fiction or to reality? I don't see any reason the rules should override reality in this case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. Why not? Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) committed by publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the report were as true and accurate as possible. That means that the gamestate also changes whether a violation was committed—because that’s part of the gamestate itself. To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It would be INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true and accurate at the time they were published. Upon ratification the gamestate is changed to what it would be if the reports were as true and accurate as possible (which is 100% true and accurate). That means that the game state is changed to make any blot levying INEFFECTIVE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote: > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be > retroactively accurate... I think? Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently
break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork
and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside
those games. It would be self-contained.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
> don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
> ambiguity.
>
> Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
> ratification without objection?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> > retroactively accurate... I think?
> >
> > > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> > > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> > > probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> > >
> > > -The Arbitor
> > >
> > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
> > >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the
> > investigation
> > >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for
> no
> > >> other purpose.
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd wrote:
> > >>>
> > On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> >
> > The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is
> because
> > >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what
> the
> > >>> gamestate of either of them is.
> >
> > I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no
> > entities
> > >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than
> > those
> > >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor
> is
> > >>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities
> in
> > >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those
> > directly
> > >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is
> recordkeepor
> > have
> > >>> their default value.}
> > >>>
> > >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
> > >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
> > >>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport
> > >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
> > >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> D. Margaux
> >
>
--
D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
ambiguity.
Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
ratification without objection?
-Aris
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> retroactively accurate... I think?
>
> > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> > probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> >
> > -The Arbitor
> >
> >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
> >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the
> investigation
> >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for no
> >> other purpose.
> >>
> >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd wrote:
> >>>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux
> wrote:
>
> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
> >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
> >>> gamestate of either of them is.
>
> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no
> entities
> >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than
> those
> >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
> >>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those
> directly
> >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor
> have
> >>> their default value.}
> >>>
> >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
> >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
> >>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport
> >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
> >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
> >>>
> >> --
> >> D. Margaux
>
