OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
=== Registrar: juan The Agoran Directory2023-04-10 === --- NEWS * We've had another hit-and-run Cantus Cygneus. jimmy became a player and shortly after skiddadled out of the game. --- PLAYERS Active players: 11/18 a Player Registered Last change Contact - -- -- --- --- + 4st 2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail dot com + Aspen2022-11-04 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail dot com + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw dot edu + Janet2019-06-02 2021-02-03 agora at randomcat dot org + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail dot com + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 " yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at yahoo.co dot uk + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat dot br + nix 2022-10-09 " agora at nullarch dot com + snail2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail dot com - Aced72022-10-19 2023-04-03 cadenomic at gmail dot com - Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-04-03 gbs at canishe dot com - Marb 2022-11-27 2023-04-03 marb at shabu dot town - R. Lee 2023-01-31 2023-04-03 sarahestrange0 at gmail dot com - Shy Owl 2022-10-07 2023-04-03 iamashyown at proton dot me - omd 2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail dot com - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me Convetions: * Player: Latest player name. * Registered: Date of latest registration. * Last change: Date of latest change in Activity. * Contact: URI for eir prefered contact method Legend for symbols: a Activity + Active - Inactive " Same value as cell to the left --- FORA PublicityLocation or descriptionTypical use ------- Public agora-official at agoranomic.org official reports Public agoranomic at groups.io * backup Public agora-business at agoranomic.org other business Public agora at listserver.tue.nl backup Foreign irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic discussion Foreign matrix:r/#agoranomiccommunity:mozilla.org discussion Discussion https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc discussion Discussion agora-discussion at agoranomic.org discussion * The forum is specifically just that email list. Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list: http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to server irc.libera.chat, port 6667, channel ##nomic. You can subscribe to GIO by messaging the following email main+subscribe at agoranomic.groups.io There is also a Matrix foreign forum: https://matrix.to/#/#agoranomiccommunity:mozilla.org matrix:r/#agoranomiccommunity:mozilla.org?via=mozilla.org&via=matrix.org&via=gharbeia.net matrix:roomid/gRbsbOgIxyniozlrXO:mozilla.org?via=mozilla.org&via=matrix.org&via=gharbeia.net (Hopefully one of the links should work) --- BANNED PEOPLE --- Person Date of ban -- --- Madrid 2022-09-11 --- --- INTERNAL Regarding what information is included in the report and why. - List of players (R2139) - List of players' contact information (R2139) - Date of latest registration (R2139) - Fora (R2139) - Date of latest activation (convenience for deregistrations as per R2646) - Number of players (petition by nix on 2023-02-23) - Banned people (R2679) --- EDITORIAL For any corrections, For any suggestions or complaints of form, Please contact the Registrar. === -- juan Registrar
OFF: Writ of FAGE
Lo! I hereby command the player here refered to as jimmy to be deregistered in a Writ of Fungiedae Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione (Writ of FAGE). Let it be known henceforth that player jimmy has been deregistered this way. Behold jimmy's Cantus Cygneus: Marfy Marf via agora-business [2023-04-09 01:08]: > I submit this document ,a Cantus Cygneus, to the registrar > > I come from a distant land. I have heard stories of this place. Terrible > stories. Of a vile evil. Taxes. These tax report whatever things are cringe > and have gone on long enough. For your crimes you are all no longer goofy > goobers. Your goofy status has been revoked, and only returning to not > paying taxes will begin the healing process. I expect this to be fixed > swiftly and properly. Note: a CFJ, promptly judged INSUFFICIENT, put into question if jimmy was an already registered player. If it were such, e would have failed to register again, but the Cantus Cygneus would have probably succeeded, making em deregistered. The next report, then, would ratify their being registered. However, up to now, there is no evidence this is the case. -- juan Registrar
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Mon 10 Apr 2023 16:05:51 UTC DEADLINES (details below) --- 4021 Assigned to G. Due Mon 17 Apr 2023 16:02:37 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4012 snail 4017 ais523 4st 4018 nix 4019 Janet 4021 G. (timeout: 4018 Murphy) OPEN CASES --- 4021 Assigned to G. [Due Mon 17 Apr 2023 16:02:37] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4021 Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4020 Judged INSUFFICIENT by G. [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4020 jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously successful. 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 10 Apr 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4019 In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance around the fountain. 4018 Judged TRUE by nix [Fri 31 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4018 I currently own the Radiance stone. 4017 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Sat 25 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4017 snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. 4016 Judged FALSE by nix [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4016 cuddlybanana has voted FOR on the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8911. 4015 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 12 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 4012 Judged TRUE by snail [Tue 14 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4012 The text of Rule 2486/1 (The Royal Parade), up to but not including "IN CELEBRATION", consists of multiple paragraphs.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4021 Assigned to G.
The below CFJ is 4021. I assign it to G.. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4021 === CFJ 4021 === Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. == Caller:snail Barred:nix Judge: G. == History: Called by snail: 09 Apr 2023 20:40:20 Assigned to G.: [now] == Caller's Arguments: Arguments for TRUE: Snail, Janet, and nix all tied for highest modified stone rockiness at the end of the week, so the following rule text applied: In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em. snail was the player that "reached first", since e was the first player to ever reach (though it was for the Score Stone), so the Hot Potato stone is transferred to em, as e reached for it the previous week, and the previous week's stone specifications are what are referred to by "stone specified." Complications may arise if you consider the sentence before this: At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in the previous week is transferred to em. but it seems to merely supply the context under which "stone specified", "in a tie", and "tied player" is to be defined. "Reaching" is defined in a separate paragraph: Once a week each player CAN "reach" for a specified stone owned by Agora by announcement. It is worth determining what "in a tie", "stone specified", and "reached first" each mean. Also note that "When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence." It seems pretty clear to me that when the rules say "reached first" it refers to the player that took the reaching game action first, among the relevant players, generally, and not specifically "in the previous week" as others may argue, as that wording isn't present in the text. -- Gratuitous Arguments by nix: First, the text itself is as follows: At the beginning of each week, the stone specified by the player with the highest Modified Rockiness that reached for a stone in the previous week is transferred to em. In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em. When a player receives a stone in this way, eir Base Rockiness is set to 0. The immediately relevant sentence is "In a tie, the stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em." "In a tie" specifies a context, and as an adverbial phrase can be moved around. It seems that snail is interpretting it as "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em in a tie." It can also be read as "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first in a tie is transferred to em." Now, I'll grant that each reading is equally likely if we have no context. The first sentence of the paragraph provides the context of a weekly reach, which favors the second reading. However, even if we ignore that context, we have two equally textually supported readings. It'd then come down to our Four Factors. There's no precedent or previous gameplay that disagrees with either reading. There's a clear "best interest of the game" to make it play as it is intended, and not give a player a permanent advantage. "Common sense" also seems to favor the reading that is more fair. Thus, while both readings might be plausible, only one is supportable by our judicial tradition. -- Caller's response to gratuitous arguments by nix: This assertion deserves skepticism. Moving the phrase around changes the meaning of the sentence. It may be fine for "When X, Y happens." meaning the same as "Y happens when X." But the sentence is more complicated. When X happens, the Y specified by Z that is a part of X is W. This is the same as "The Y specified by Z is W, when X." but not the same as "The Y specified by (Z when X) is W" or even "The (Y when X) specified by Z is W" or "The Y specified by Z is (W when X)" . To be clear, the difference here is that the adverbial phrase (when X) applies to the whole subsequent clause when it is seperated at the start, or the whole preceding clause when at the end, but when situated in the middle, it only modifies one part of the clause, causing a different meaning. Applying this to the wording of "The stone specified by the tied player who reached first is transferred to em." we have a lot of candidates for modification
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4019 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4019
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4019 ===
In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in
a powerful dance around the fountain.
==
Caller:Juan
Judge: Janet
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by Juan: 27 Mar 2023 18:21:13
Assigned to Janet:02 Apr 2023 17:59:43
Motion to extend filed: 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00
Judged FALSE by Janet:01 Jan 1970 00:00:00
==
Caller's Evidence:
Juan wrote, to Agora-Business:
> Forest Sweeney via agora-business [2023-03-27 08:56]:
>> Here are some interesting reports you should go and look at. What did these
>> offices do? What was in these reports? Some things have changed!
>>
>> In response to the Sun 24 Feb 2008 Conductor Report, I declare the ritual
>> number as 10.
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg01091.html
>>
>> […]
>>
>> In response to
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06559.html
>> I declare the ritual number as 15.
>>
>> I'm done for now. I'll be back later until someone inevitably
>> doesn't like this and fixes the timeframes we can report on.
>> :) It's just 1 point and this is a lot of work to dig up :P
> For each natural number N from 16 to 41, I perform the following action:
>
> {
> In response to the Nth ritual act ever performed, I declare the ritual
> number to be N.
> }
>
> I have qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance
> around the fountain, thereby making it so all of em earn 1 radiance.
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments FOR:
The only issue here is whether the intent is clear and unambiguous, which
ultimately will come down to some criterion of reasonable effort. The only
information that needs to be verified is whether 1) there were at least 41
ritual acts, and that 2) none of those have had a ritual number declared in
response. Well, I posit that those two facts are patently obvious, even
though it might be unreasonably hard to identify specifically which acts
were those. But their identity, alas, is irrelevant.
--
Judge Janet's Arguments:
Although the caller states that this case turns only on whether eir
attempts were sufficiently clear, it also depends on whether 4st's
purported declarations of the ritual number as 10 to 15 succeeded (at [0]).
I find that these purported declarations were not successful. R2680/1
phrases the definitions of ritual acts as ongoing and present tense.
Similarly, the enabling of declaring the ritual number is phrased as
present and ongoing. Thus, I find that the ENABLING of declaring a
ritual number attaches when the ritual act is performed and does not
apply retrospectively past when R2680 was enacted. Thus, the purported
declarations from 10 to 15 were referencing events that were not ritual
acts.
However, the caller raises the argument that R2680 does not require the
declaration of a ritual number to include a reference to a specific
event. I find that this is not correct. R2680's phrasing of "for each
ritual act" suggests that the declaration applies to a specific ritual
act, and thus the specification of the action must include the specific
ritual act. The caller's purported declarations even seem to accept
that, as they attempt to include a reference to a specific ritual act,
rather than just having a raw declaration.
Thus, I find that 4st's purported declarations from 10-15 were invalid
because they failed to specify the required ritual act.
Although this finding means that I do not need to reach the clarity of
caller's purported declarations from 16-41 (sine they are invalid due to
not being at most 1 greater than some previous declaration), I will
continue to resolve the controversy anyway.
Having found that a specific ritual act must be referenced for a
declaration to be valid, the question is now what communication standard
must be met. I find that the standard is equivalent to the normal
"specify" standard. The only clarity standard weaker than that in the
rules is used in R869 registration, which is explicitly and deliberately
weaker than "by announcement" (and includes "reasonably clearly and
reasonably unambiguously"). Given that the only weaker standard has
explicit and clear wording, I find that, under the "game custom" factor,
it is not reasonable to read in a weaker clarity standard than "specify".
Having found that specific ritual acts must be referen
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4020 assigned to G., judged INSUFFICIENT
I am performing the following actions for procedural reasons of the
Arbitor's office. I pledge not to claim any radiance for the actions
below.
On Sun, Apr 9, 2023 at 10:59 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
>
> I CFJ: "jimmy's recent attempt at registering is unambiguously
> successful"
The above CFJ is CFJ 4020. I assign it to G.
I judge CFJ 4020 INSUFFICIENT. The Caller has not cleanly presented
the existing evidence such as the alleged registration message, which
is a bit of an issue; more importantly, in what arguments e does
present, e has said e "doesn't have any evidence but e believes..."
It is not the job of the judge to assemble said evidence without
anything to go on; that would place an undue burden on the judge, as
it places em in the position of making potentially intrusive enquiries
into whether someone is "really" a person. If it turns out jimmy
wasn't a person, or was an already-registered person, ratification or
self-ratification will fail retroactively as it would "add
inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules" (R1551, as
interpreted by CFJ 3455 for registration) so asking a judge to push
the matter further based on the current publicly-available evidence is
not in the best interests of the judicial system or the game.
We don't use INSUFFICIENT too often, as judges often take it on
themselves to dig in past emails to verify or find evidence and so
forth, which is generally part of the game. However, and with no
prejudice or fault placed on the caller or this issue should future
evidence be presented, as an Arbitor's policy it seems appropriate to
draw a line for insufficient on this case.
>
> On Sunday, April 9, 2023, Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 4/9/23 10:08, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > > I don't have any damning evidence but I believe that "jimmy" is a
> > currently
> > > registered player. As such, they couldn't have registered again (R869,
> > only
> > > the unregistered can register)
> > >
> > > I intend to ratify without objection: {The person who recently went by
> > the
> > > name "jimmy" has not ever registered as the player named "jimmy"}
> >
> >
> > I object.
> >
> > That's unlikely. Most players would know not to do such a thing. Also, I
> > don't think this would work, one doesn't register "as" a specific
> > player. Even if it is the case that this was an existing player, the
> > Cantus Cygneus would still be valid, and the recent registration attempt
> > being unsuccessful wouldn't change that.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
