The CFJ in the below message is 4028. I assign it to G.
Statement: "There was an infraction noted in this message."
Judgement
FALSE, due to the use of conditional announcements in the noting
attempts, where the conditions were not "reasonably straightforward to
evaluate at the time with publicly-available information at the time
of communication" as required by Rule 2518/1. In general, the
"reasonably straightforward" clause means that the caller themselves
must be able to resolve the conditional with a bit of minor research
in the archives (e.g. looking at recent past activities) such that
resolving the conditional is a fairly minor act of
interpretation/convenience. These conditionals, which hinge on a
complex question, are not so easy to evaluate.
[I'm not meaning to stack the deck by judging this one, but rather to
expedite a different case if someone attempts to Note Invisibilitating
unconditionally. I'd assign any such case to someone else. But
hiding behind conditionals for criminal allegations doesn't/shouldn't
work - if you want to Note, you need to take a risk and
unconditionally allege that a specific act was a violation].
Rule 2518/1 (Power=3)
Determinacy
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
A communication purporting to express conditional intent to
perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a
minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably
straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at
the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain
specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes
the communication.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
Date: Fri, May 12, 2023 at 5:00 AM
Subject: Re: BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
To: Agora Business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
Cc: Yachay Wayllukuq <yachaywayllu...@gmail.com>
So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't
know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the
mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that
supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the
past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was
held up by, but if we do, then:
- Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically?
What about other ancient things that may affect how other *current* things
of the game work too?
- Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists
or works as intended?
- It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones
which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now
supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible.
Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some
blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this.
G., the person who proposed to add that rule, is both the default
investigator for the Referee, and the person who holds the office for CfJs,
so I trust that this is gameplay that they intended and will participate in.
I look forward to the investigation (if any) and the resulting CfJ. Their
arguments in particular.
--------
If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
for being a player.
If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
for holding an office.
If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
for their latest message posted to fora.
If 4st has committed the following infraction for the following reason
described, then I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st
for jaywalking without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of
swagger.
I CfJ: "There was an infraction noted in this message."
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:48 PM Yachay Wayllukuq <yachaywayllu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> What is Invisibilitating?
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 6:42 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal, "now you don't see it", AI=1:
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text:
>>
>> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction.
>>
>>
>> [
>> Rule 2056 history (confirmed by checking archives):
>>
>> Enacted (Power=1) by Proposal 4513 "Invisibilitating" (Steve), 10 July
>> 2003.
>> Repealed by Proposal 4759 "Olive Repeals" (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005.
>> ]
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
