Re: Failures to Reenact (was Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8152-8163)
Oh gosh, I'd completely forgot about that. If anyone else forgets the context, Rule 105 said (and still says) that "A repealed rule... MUST be reenacted with the same ID number" - i.e. all repealed rules are guilty of not being reenacted. If nobody's up for rephrasing it, I think we should at least open up blot ownership, Finger Pointing and the Cold Hand of Justice to non-person entities, so that the criminal lowlife rules can be brought to justice. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, June 16, 2019 4:18 AM, James Cook wrote: > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really > > relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ > > history to bewilder future historians. > > Did this ever get judged? I can't find any more mention of it. Jason > Cobb's suggestion of Agora owning blots reminded me of it.
Fw: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
Forwarding to DIS - you sent this to me privately, presumably by mistake.
In answer to the question, that seems plausible to me.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 16, 2019 2:02 AM, Rance Bedwell wrote:
>
>
> R2549 says "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able
> to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots."
>
> If Agora was unable to transfer the zombie ownership at the time the auction
> was initiated, does that mean the initiation failed in the first place?
>
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019, 04:49:50 AM CDT, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red
> wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, there used to be a thing in rule 2551 that meant the
> clause "if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items... at will" didn't apply if
> the auctioneer was Agora. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the
> line - possibly in proposal 8113, which removed a sentence but I'm not sure
> which one.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>
> On Saturday, June 15, 2019 5:52 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Ha, maybe. Here's another argument, though: Master is secured at a
> > > power threshold of 2. Rule 2551 ("Auction End") only has power 1. I
> > > doubt Rule 2551 can get around that by saying it's Agora doing it
> > > rather than R2551, but if it can, I guess that could be used as an
> > > escalation scam.
> >
> > Good catch. And it wouldn't get around that. As far as I know, Agora
> > doesn't have its Power set, so Agora wouldn't have any more right to
> > flip the switch than R2552.
> > If Agora did have its Power set, then causing Agora to act would
> > likely fall under
> >
> > 3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
> > with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an
> > instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
> > operation.
> >
> >
> > ...or if not, there's a big hole in general. I think there might
> > actually be precedent regarding this, since there have been a bunch of
> > Power escalation scam attempts in the past, but I guess it's a moot
> > point in this case.
Re: Fw: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
This is interesting.
R1885, power 2, says "the Registrar CAN put that zombie ... up for
auction.". R2549 is power 1, so I think 1885 wins. It doesn't exactly say
"initiate" an auction, but in the context of the rules I think it must mean
that.
I can think of two ways to interpret the situation. (a) R2549 gives the
method for initiating an auction (by announcement) and then attempts to
forbid it in this case with a CANNOT, but that CANNOT is overruled by
R1885. or (b) R2549 gives a method (by announcement) that is limited by
that CANNOT. R1885 says I CAN initiate the auction but does not give me a
method, so I actually can't, practically speaking.
On Sun., Jun. 16, 2019, 07:14 Timon Walshe-Grey, wrote:
> Forwarding to DIS - you sent this to me privately, presumably by mistake.
>
> In answer to the question, that seems plausible to me.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, June 16, 2019 2:02 AM, Rance Bedwell
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > R2549 says "An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is
> able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots."
> >
> > If Agora was unable to transfer the zombie ownership at the time the
> auction was initiated, does that mean the initiation failed in the first
> place?
> >
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2019, 04:49:50 AM CDT, Timon Walshe-Grey
> m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
> > If I recall correctly, there used to be a thing in rule 2551 that meant
> the clause "if the auctioneer CAN transfer the items... at will" didn't
> apply if the auctioneer was Agora. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere
> along the line - possibly in proposal 8113, which removed a sentence but
> I'm not sure which one.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 5:52 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 10:40 PM James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ha, maybe. Here's another argument, though: Master is secured at a
> > > > power threshold of 2. Rule 2551 ("Auction End") only has power 1. I
> > > > doubt Rule 2551 can get around that by saying it's Agora doing it
> > > > rather than R2551, but if it can, I guess that could be used as an
> > > > escalation scam.
> > >
> > > Good catch. And it wouldn't get around that. As far as I know, Agora
> > > doesn't have its Power set, so Agora wouldn't have any more right to
> > > flip the switch than R2552.
> > > If Agora did have its Power set, then causing Agora to act would
> > > likely fall under
> > >
> > > 3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
> > > with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an
> > > instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's
> > > operation.
> > >
> > >
> > > ...or if not, there's a big hole in general. I think there might
> > > actually be precedent regarding this, since there have been a bunch of
> > > Power escalation scam attempts in the past, but I guess it's a moot
> > > point in this case.
>
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: My judgement is as follows: When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the rule. Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I judge this CFJ FALSE. Proto-CFJ: A player CANNOT be punished for violating No Faking. Arguments By CFJ 3737, forbidding something that a player can do "naturally" via a SHALL NOT does not regulate that action as per the first paragraph of R2125, so lying is unregulated. However, the second paragraph of R2125 says: "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" and "proscribe" means "to forbid". And I think "forbidding" something, by common definition, is to make it a rules violation (i.e. a SHALL NOT).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I like it. It seems to be a direct logical consequence of the judgment (although this might get you an IRRELEVANT judgment). Jason Cobb On 6/16/19 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: My judgement is as follows: When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the rule. Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I judge this CFJ FALSE. Proto-CFJ: A player CANNOT be punished for violating No Faking. Arguments By CFJ 3737, forbidding something that a player can do "naturally" via a SHALL NOT does not regulate that action as per the first paragraph of R2125, so lying is unregulated. However, the second paragraph of R2125 says: "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" and "proscribe" means "to forbid". And I think "forbidding" something, by common definition, is to make it a rules violation (i.e. a SHALL NOT).
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
> Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to
breate but to do so would violate the rule.
At most one of "breathing is prohibited" and "breathing is unregulated"
can be true, yet you assert that (in this hypothetical) both are true.
[0]: Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions")
{
A Regulated 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. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 4:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this
theoretical contract would still be able to breate but to do so would
violate the rule. Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I
judge this CFJ FALSE.
On 6/15/19 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This below case is CFJ 3737, I assign it to Trigon:
=== CFJ 3737
===
If the contract in evidence were to come into force, breathing
would be a regulated action.
==
Caller: Jason Cobb
Judge: Trigon
==
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 15 Jun 2019 03:34:49
Assigned to Trigon: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00
==
Caller's Arguments:
I argue that, if the contract were to come into force, then the Rules
would "limit" the performance of breathing, namely that parties to the
contract would be prohibited from breathing. This limiting would apply
due to the excerpt from Rule 1742, which requires that parties to the
contract act in accordance with it. In this case, requiring the parties
to act in accordance with the contract has the same effect as
prohibiting breathing. Prohibition of an action is a form of limiting
its performance. This would cause breathing to fall under the definition
of being regulated under Rule 2125. I thus argue that this CFJ should be
judged TRUE.
Caller's Evidence:
Contract:
{
All parties to this contract SHALL NOT breathe.
}
(I explicitly do NOT consent to this contract.)
Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions"):
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under
which
the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as
part
of its effect, modify information for which some player is
required to be a recordkeepor.
Excerpt from Rule 1742 ("Contracts"):
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.
==
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent > on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty? > > I create and pend the below proposal > First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution? It applies pretty heavily to various CANs and CANNOTs even if SHALLs are broken - v. bad idea I think. I think there are precedents that this applies to SHALL, but I figured rather than digging I'd do a proto-CFJ that showed a logical consequence of the judgement, in case we wanted to wholly re-evaluate, or to see if that logical consequence was a reason to file for reconsideration.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice...
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 7:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on
regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty?
I create and pend the below proposal
Name: Regulated what?
AI: 3
Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions"
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:47 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
> Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to
breate but to do so would violate the rule.
At most one of "breathing is prohibited" and "breathing is unregulated"
can be true, yet you assert that (in this hypothetical) both are true.
[0]: Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions")
{
A Regulated 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. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 4:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
My judgement is as follows:
When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in
question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this
theoretical contract would still be able to breate but to do so would
violate the rule. Whereas this does not constitute a limitation, I
judge this CFJ FALSE.
On 6/15/19 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
This below case is CFJ 3737, I assign it to Trigon:
=== CFJ 3737
===
If the contract in evidence were to come into force, breathing
would be a regulated action.
==
Caller:Jason Cobb
Judge: Trigon
==
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 15 Jun 2019 03:34:49
Assigned to Trigon: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00
==
Caller's Arguments:
I argue that, if the contract were to come into force, then the Rules
would "limit" the performance of breathing, namely that parties to the
contract would be prohibited from breathing. This limiting would apply
due to the excerpt from Rule 1742, which requires that parties to the
contract act in accordance with it. In this case, requiring the parties
to act in accordance with the contract has the same effect as
prohibiting breathing. Prohibition of an action is a form of limiting
its performance. This would cause breathing to fall under the definition
of being regulated under Rule 2125. I thus argue that this CFJ should be
judged TRUE.
Caller's Evidence:
Contract:
{
All parties to this contract SHALL NOT breathe.
}
(I explicitly do NOT consent to this contract.)
Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions"):
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under
which
the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as
part
of its effect, modify information for which some player is
required to be a recordkeepor.
Excerpt from Rule 1742 ("Contracts"):
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.
==
DIS: unregulation
V.J. Rada > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" Jason Cobb wrote: > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the Rights era, maybe we should go more along these lines...? No interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and legal amendment of this Rule. [...] Every person has the right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
Re: DIS: unregulation
I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ 3737. When we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to prohibit anything (at least for certain players), thus removing the protections. So, when I create a contract that prohibits breathing, breathing would be indirectly "prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the requirement for some people to follow the contract, thus taking away everyone's right to breathe in the Rules. Note that I could be wrong about the above, especially if there is CFJ precedent about this language. Jason Cobb On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: V.J. Rada > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" Jason Cobb wrote: > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the Rights era, maybe we should go more along these lines...? No interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and legal amendment of this Rule. [...] Every person has the right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it.
Re: DIS: unregulation
On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> V.J. Rada >> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" >> >> Jason Cobb wrote: >> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... >> >> I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against >> regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the >> Rights era, >> maybe we should go more along these lines...? >> No interpretation of Agoran law or >> binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's >> rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and >> legal amendment of this Rule. >> [...] >> Every person has the right, though not necessarily the >> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or >> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of >> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules >> explicitly or implicitly permit it. > I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ 3737. When we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to prohibit anything (at least for certain players), thus removing the protections. So, when I create a contract that prohibits breathing, breathing would be indirectly "prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the requirement for some people to follow the contract, thus taking away everyone's right to breathe in the Rules. Oh, you're right, I think we'd have to make a specific exception somewhere that a contract doesn't make something "regulated" even if breach of contract is punishable in the rules.
Re: DIS: unregulation
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed, and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:50 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> V.J. Rada > >> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" > >> > >> Jason Cobb wrote: > >> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... > >> > >> I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against > >> regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the > >> Rights era, > >> maybe we should go more along these lines...? > >> No interpretation of Agoran law or > >> binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's > >> rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and > >> legal amendment of this Rule. > >> [...] > >> Every person has the right, though not necessarily the > >> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or > >> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of > >> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules > >> explicitly or implicitly permit it. > > > > I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ 3737. > When > > we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to prohibit anything (at > > least for certain players), thus removing the protections. So, when I > create > > a contract that prohibits breathing, breathing would be indirectly > > "prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the requirement for some > > people to follow the contract, thus taking away everyone's right to > breathe > > in the Rules. > > Oh, you're right, I think we'd have to make a specific exception somewhere > that a contract doesn't make something "regulated" even if breach of > contract is punishable in the rules. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't need a special rule to say what is already implicit. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent > > on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too > hasty? > > > > I create and pend the below proposal > > > > First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution? It applies pretty > heavily to various CANs and CANNOTs even if SHALLs are broken - v. bad idea > I think. > > I think there are precedents that this applies to SHALL, but I figured > rather than digging I'd do a proto-CFJ that showed a logical consequence of > the judgement, in case we wanted to wholly re-evaluate, or to see if that > logical consequence was a reason to file for reconsideration. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Remember that the same rule is also what says that if the Rules define
an action, then you can't do it outside of how the Rules say that you
can [0]. I don't think we want to repeal that.
[0]: Excerpt from Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions")
{
A Regulated 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.
}
Jason Cobb
On 6/16/19 9:11 PM, Rebecca wrote:
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't
need a special rule to say what is already implicit.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent
> on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too
hasty?
>
> I create and pend the below proposal
>
First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution? It applies pretty
heavily to various CANs and CANNOTs even if SHALLs are broken - v. bad idea
I think.
I think there are precedents that this applies to SHALL, but I figured
rather than digging I'd do a proto-CFJ that showed a logical consequence of
the judgement, in case we wanted to wholly re-evaluate, or to see if that
logical consequence was a reason to file for reconsideration.
Re: DIS: unregulation
Maybe a model like this would work: - _Each_ requirement-creating entity (including both the Rules at large, each contract, regulations, etc.) has its own set of "regulated actions", and cannot be interpreted to say anything about actions outside of this set. This would keep the stipulation that you can't do it except as the requirement-creating entity permits you to. - The regulated actions of contracts can define new terms that consist of doing thing in sequence (including conditionals, repetition, and whatnot), but each element of this sequence must be a regulated action of a different requirement-creating entity. - This would just render invalid contracts that attempt to prohibit non-game actions, such as breathing. - We permit them to defer to other requirements-creating entities because; - If it is the Rules, then the regulated actions are already relating to the game (assuming the rules don't ever try to prohibit breathing). - If it is a Rules-created requirement-creating entity (maybe a regulation), then it is as safe as the Rules. - If it is another contract, then, applying this logic recursively, it can only do safe things, so it's okay. - The regulated actions of requirement-creating entities can also include regulated actions of _other_ requirement-creating entities, but cannot provide new methods of performing them. - This permits a contract that requires its players to, say, perform the Ritual, without allowing it to say that the Ritual can be performed by doing something else, like, say, sending a public message. - As currently, contracts can create requirements upon players that the Rules will enforce on the parties only. Jason Cobb On 6/16/19 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> V.J. Rada >> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" >> >> Jason Cobb wrote: >> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... >> >> I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against >> regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the >> Rights era, >> maybe we should go more along these lines...? >> No interpretation of Agoran law or >> binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's >> rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and >> legal amendment of this Rule. >> [...] >> Every person has the right, though not necessarily the >> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or >> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of >> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules >> explicitly or implicitly permit it. > I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ 3737. When we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to prohibit anything (at least for certain players), thus removing the protections. So, when I create a contract that prohibits breathing, breathing would be indirectly "prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the requirement for some people to follow the contract, thus taking away everyone's right to breathe in the Rules. Oh, you're right, I think we'd have to make a specific exception somewhere that a contract doesn't make something "regulated" even if breach of contract is punishable in the rules.
Re: DIS: unregulation
On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed, and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ Oh I agree on that score. I mean protecting against the following inference chain (1) one person signs something about breathing; (2) therefore something about breathing is punishable in the Rules due to punishments for violating contracts (3) therefore breathing is regulated by the rules (4) therefore breathing (by anybody now) can only be done as the rules permit. The original one person who signed the thing can take what e gets.
Re: DIS: unregulation
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I think any reasonable human judge would rule as such. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves > > any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are > needed, > > and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee > can > > use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ > > Oh I agree on that score. I mean protecting against the following > inference > chain (1) one person signs something about breathing; (2) therefore > something about breathing is punishable in the Rules due to punishments for > violating contracts (3) therefore breathing is regulated by the rules (4) > therefore breathing (by anybody now) can only be done as the rules permit. > The original one person who signed the thing can take what e gets. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Fw: BUS: Ribbon claims
Ah, sorry. In case it's still helpful: green ribbon - for holding Registrar or Treasuror (take your pick) for 30 days without failing any duties blue ribbon - for judging CFJ 3726 (also 3727) on June 4 On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 18:26, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Friendly Ribbon request from the Tailor - > > Please when announcing give the specific reason (e.g. "for Proposal > " or "Office " or whatever). I double-check the requirements > and it helps a lot if I don't have to guess... > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2019 at 5:17 PM Rance Bedwell wrote: > > > > TTttPF. > > > >I award myself a cyan ribbon. > > > > Thank you for reminding me. -Rance > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 9, 2019, 2:29:24 PM CDT, James Cook > > wrote: > > > > I award myself a green ribbon and a blue ribbon. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: It's served its purpose
I'm interested, but I'd like a way to leave the contract, at least after The Ritual is gone. I realize the contract doesn't really do much after that point, but it bugs me anyway that I'll continue to be bound by it. On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 12:13, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I consent to the following document as a contract: > > --- start of document --- > > THE RITUAL INQUISITION > > 1. FEAR. Parties to the Ritual Inquisition are called inquisitors. Any player > CAN become an inquisitor. Players SHOULD become inquisitors. > > 2. SURPRISE. Any inquisitor CAN act on behalf of any other inquisitor to > support an announced intent to banish Rule 2596. Inquisitors are ENCOURAGED > to do so in such a way that non-inquisitors do not expect it. > > 3. RUTHLESS EFFICIENCY. All inquisitors SHALL ensure that an intent to banish > Rule 2596 is announced in each Agoran week, i.e., all inquisitors are guilty > of violating this contract if such an intent is not announced in a given > Agoran week. This does not apply for any week during which the Ritual > Inquisition has not continuously existed or Rule 2596 has not continuously > had positive Power. > > 4. FANATICAL DEVOTION. To engage in DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER about an announced > intent to perform a dependent action is to, for each inquisitor who CAN do > so, act on eir behalf to support the announced intent. > > --- end of document --- > > -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
Well that screws up my Oathbreaking CFJ *grumble grumble*. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant wrote: I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule 2125, which says in part "A Regulated 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." The opinion cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did not exist at the time of that CFJ, and appears to abrogate the precedent it set. Whoops. I self-file a motion to reconsider. Revised judgement: I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in 2014). Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is impossible after all. I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125. I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on recordkeepors
I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the "-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"? Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 1:04 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 00:58 -0400, omd wrote: CFJ: In Rule 2125, "required to be a recordkeepor" refers only to recordkeepors as defined in Rule 2166. Arguments: Or is it simply an ordinary-language reference to the act of keeping records? Gratutious: since when was "recordkeepor" "ordinary language"? The word probably only exists in the Agoran dialect of English (I did a web search, and the entirety of the first page of results was Agora- related) and thus is inherently tied to Agoran definitions, even out of context.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on recordkeepors
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 1:06 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the > "-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"? Just a silly custom, though I don't know its origin.
