OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
I expunge 1 blot from nix. -- GO TO JAIL (Referee's Weekly Report) https://agoranomic.org/Referee/latest.txt -- Date of this report: 22 May 2023 Date of last report: 15 May 2023 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies) == Blots Person - - 0 4st 1 nix INFRACTION HISTORY(does not self-ratify) == Reporter Infracter DateIn. Fg. Crime - -- --- --- - In. - Investigated Fg. - Forgiven BLOT HISTORY (does not self-ratify) == PersonChange DateReason --- -- --- nix-1 2023-05-22 4st expunged a blot. [TIME OF LAST REPORT] nix-1 2023-05-15 4st expunged a blot. nix+1 2023-05-15 Rule 103 violation nix+1 2023-05-15 Rule 2143 violation nix 0 2023-05-15 Rule 2143 violation nix-1 2023-05-08 4st expunged a blot. 4st 0 2023-05-08 Self Expungement (DIDN'T HAPPEN) 4st 0 2023-04-29 (FALSE) Violation of No Faking nix+2 2023-04-25 Created willingly snail -1 2023-04-25 4st expunged a blot. snail -1 2023-04-29 Self-expungement Snail +2 2023-04-14 Prime Minister Dive Order Janet -1 2023-04-14 Self-Expungement nix 0 2023-04-05 Weekly Tardiness Snail -1 2023-04-04 Self-Expungement Janet -1 2023-04-03 Self-Expungement Janet -1 2023-04-02 Self-Expungement Snail -1 2023-03-27 Self-Expungement Snail +2 2023-03-16 Violating R591 Janet +1 2023-03-16 Weekly Tardiness Janet +2 2023-03-06 Prime Minister Dive Order cuddlybanana -1 2022-08-08 Expunged by Madrid cuddlybanana +1 2022-08-04 Monthly Tardiness secretsnail-2 2022-07-18 Apology received and accepted secretsnail+2 (f) 2022-07-11 Violation of Rule 879 ais523 -1 2022-06-19 Weekly self-expungement ais523 -1 2022-06-13 Weekly self-expungement ais523 +2 2022-06-12 Cabinet Order of Dive Shy Owl-1 2022-06-08 Expunged by G. (1 BBG in fees) R. Lee -2 2022-06-08 Expunged by G. (2 BBGs in fees) nix-2 2022-06-08 Expunged by G. (2 BBGs in fees) Jason -2 2022-06-08 Expunged by G. (2 BBGs in fees) Cuddlybanana -3 2022-06-08 Expunged by G. (3 BBGs in fees) Madrid -3 2022-06-06 Self-expunged (3 BBGs in fees) Juan -1 2022-06-06 Self-expunged (1 BBG in fees) G. -2 2022-05-15 Expunged for 2 BBGs in fees Madrid +2 2022-05-15 Cabinet Order of Dive Jason -1 2022-05-15 Expunged for 1 BBG in fees nix-3 2022-05-14 Expunged for 3 BBGs in fees Aspen -1 2022-05-02 Expunged by G. for 1 BBG in fees Trigon -7 2022-05-02 Expunged by G. for 7 BBGs in fees R. Lee +2 2022-04-24 CHoJ: Failure to judge CFJ 3956 secretsnail+0 (W) 2022-04-24 Unjustified Gesticulation nix+1 (f) 2022-04-10 CHoJ: Unjustified Gesticulation nix+0 (W) 2022-04-10 Unjustified Gesticulation secretsnail-3 2022-04-06 Expunged by G. for 3 BBGs in fees Trigon +1 2022-04-04 Levied via 2BBG fee via ais523 secretsnail-2 2022-04-04 Apology for no registrar monthly secretsnail+2 (f) 2022-04-03 CHoJ: No registrar monthly in March Madrid +1 2022-04-01 Levied via 2BBG fee by G. Juan +1 2022-04-01 Levied via 2BBG fee by G. Madrid -7 2022-04-01 expunged by Madrid for 7BBG fees Aspen -2 2022-04-01 expunged by Aspen for 2BBG fees G. +1 2022-04-01 by announcement by G. Jason +1 2022-04-01 Levied via 2BBG fee by G. secretsnail+1 2022-04-01 Levied via 2BBG fee by G. Aspen +1 2022-04-01 Levied via 2BBG fee by G. Aspen +1 (f) 2022-03-30 CHoJ: distributing unpended Trigon +2 2022-03-30 CHoJ: No Treasuror wkly 3/7 wk nix+2 2022-03-30 CHoJ: No Herald's weekly 3/7 wk Jason +2 2022-03-27 CHoJ: No Rulekeepor Report 3/7 wk secretsnail+2 2022-03-18 Cabinet order of Dive nix-2 2022-03-16 Expunged with 2 BBGs ATMunn -6 2022
OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
=Metareport= You can find an up-to-date version of this report at http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php Date of last report: 2023-05-14 Date of this report: 2023-05-21 MISCELLANEOUS INFO Filled offices: 18/18 (100.00%) Total officers: 9 Consolidation[1]: 2 Late reports: 0/13 (0.00%) [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean that all offices are filled by one player. OFFICES Office Holder[1]Since Last Election Complexity ADoP ~ Murphy 2020-07-032022-10-091 Arbitor G. 2022-10-092023-01-152 Assessor Janet2019-07-092023-05-073 Collector *snail2023-04-25(never) 1 Distributor omd 2018-06-15(never)[3]0 Dream Keeper snail2022-12-11(never) 1 Herald nix 2022-10-172023-05-072 Notary snail2022-03-142023-01-152 Prime Minister nix 2023-02-022023-02-260 Promotor snail2022-05-012023-01-153 Referee 4st 2023-04-092023-04-142 Registrar ~ juan 2022-08-292022-10-021 Ricemastor Yachay 2023-05-19(never) 1 Rulekeepor ~ Janet2019-12-062022-10-093 Speaker Yachay 2023-05-152019-11-05 [3]0 Stonemason Janet2020-11-11(never) 1 Tailor ~ Murphy 2021-02-282022-10-091 Webmastornix 2023-04-232023-04-231 [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) ~ = Term limited (held for 180+ days, 90+ for Prime Minister) [2] Vacant since this date [3] Currently imposed WEEKLY REPORTS Office ReportLast Published Late[1] ADoP Offices 2023-05-14[2] Arbitor Judicial matters 2023-05-21 CollectorStamps2023-05-15 Dream Keeper Dreams2023-05-15 Herald Radiance 2023-05-16 Promotor Proposal pool 2023-05-19 Referee Rule violations 2023-05-15 RegistrarPlayers, Fora 2023-05-15 Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2023-05-21 Stonemason Stones2023-05-21 [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ (does not take succumbing into account) [2] Not including this report MONTHLY REPORTS Office ReportLast Published Late Herald Patent titles 2023-05-16 Notary Contracts 2023-04-29 RegistrarPlayer history2023-05-02 Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2023-05-21 Tailor Ribbons, Laudability 2023-05-07 WebmastorWeb resources 2023-04-02 ELECTIONS Office Initiated Phase Candidates (none in progress) UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1] Office Days Until Last Election Registrar00 Days 2022-10-02 ADoP 00 Days 2022-10-09 Rulekeepor 00 Days 2022-10-09 Tailor 00 Days 2022-10-09 Arbitor 00 Days 2023-01-15 [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a candidate) 90 days after the previous one (or if it's interim and no election is ongoing). This section shows the 5 elected offices with the most time passed since the last election. Once a quarter, the ADoP SHALL start an election for 2 to 4 offices that haven't had one for at least 180 days (90 for Prime Minister), and SHOULD prioritize those that have gone the longest without one. ABBREVIATIONS - ADoP Associate Director of
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 21 May 2023
DEADLINES (details below)
---
4029 Assigned to Murphy Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:05:04
4030 Assigned to Yachay Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:06:53
4031 Assigned to ais523 Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:07:37
INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
4022 nix
4023 4st
4024 snail
4025 Janet
4028 G.
4029 Murphy
4030 Yachay
4031 ais523
OPEN CASES
---
4031 Assigned to ais523 [Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:07:37]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4031
This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
4030 Assigned to Yachay [Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:06:53]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030
Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times
for a single instance of a ritual act.
4029 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 28 May 2023 14:05:04]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4029
There was an infraction noted in this message.
RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
4028 Judged FALSE by G. [Fri 12 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4028
There was an infraction noted in this message.
4027 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 14 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4027
This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes.
4026 Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523 [Fri 12 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4026
In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as
to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions.
4025 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sat 13 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4025
In G's investigation, G violated Rule 2125 and interpreted the
rules as proscribing an unregulated action.
4024 Judged TRUE by snail [Thu 18 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4024
This means the same thing as "each and every".
4023 Judged TRUE by 4st [Fri 19 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4023
Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.
4022 Judged TRUE by nix [Mon 08 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4022
I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4031 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4031. I assign it to ais523.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4031
=== CFJ 4031 ===
This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
==
Caller:4st
Judge: ais523
==
History:
Called by 4st:18 May 2023 19:43:07
Assigned to ais523: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Sacrilege
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Janet
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> Repeal Rule 2680 ("Ritual Paper Dance").
>
> }
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to
always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no
longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime.
--
Gratuitous Arguments by Jason:
CFJ 1881.
CFJ 2589.
--
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
> wrote:
> > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by
> > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder
> > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also
> > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a
> > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029
> > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and
> > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not
> > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal
> > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I
> > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them.
>
> Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something
> along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not
> an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago
> at this point).
>
> That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't
> think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted"
> is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules.
> (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms
> in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to
> define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and
> after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.)
It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of
what you just said above. In
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523
wrote:
> However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881,
> and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical
> significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the
> meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I
> can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when
> the Fountain was created.
Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't
sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting
CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case
record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In
refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which
dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you
cited/upheld in CFJ 2585:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534
Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up
search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989)
plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of
art like "First Speaker".
--
Gratiutous Arguments by ais523:
On Tue, 2023-05-16 at 15:21 -0500, nix via agora-official wrote:
> Marvy:4st, ais523, CreateSource,
> cuddlybanana, duck, G., Janet,
> juan, Murphy, R. Lee, snail,
> Trigon, Vitor Gonçalves
Marvy is a patent title that's currently in use. I suspect that this
has no impact on rule 2029 for much the same reason that a player named
"Marvy" wouldn't, but it feels like a relevant data point.
==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4030 Assigned to Yachay
The below CFJ is 4030. I assign it to Yachay. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 === CFJ 4030 === Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. == Caller:nix Judge: Yachay == History: Called by nix:17 May 2023 23:14:29 Assigned to Yachay: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > Previous versions of rule 2680 said "CAN once" (e.g. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016950.html > - mail-archive.com isn't archiving old rulesets so I had to link the > private archive). > > However, proposal 8943 > (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13159.html) > changed it to a version without the "once". We generally say "CAN once" > if an action is only intended to be possible once, and the "once", once > present, is now repealed. This means that it should be possible to > anoint multiple ritual numbers using the same ritual act. Caller's Arguments: To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in other games. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the win). For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X happens, a player CAN Y" language. ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4029. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029 === CFJ 4029 === There was an infraction noted in this message. == Caller:Yachay Judge: Murphy == History: Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. Caller's Arguments: 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. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G: >> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: >> >> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional sense. Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > Invisibilitating > > Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html ais523 wrote: > It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete > list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where > their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the > list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal > 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) > > Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's > no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that > Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, > but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best > interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or > undefined but don't provide a definition.) G. wrote: I grepped the full BUS and OFF mboxes, and searched the CFJ archive, and I believe that there were never any legal proceedings accusing anyone of Invisibilitating, either while it existed in the previous iteration or afterwards. The only references I found were the enactment, the repeal, and the appearances in the ruleset or the proposal. This vaguely matched my memory that it was rarely if ever used. In this special case, I disagree that we are limited to the R217 definitional sources - in particular, because there are *no* R217 definitional sources, and the "text of the rules" says Invisibilitati
