Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8985-8989
On 6/4/23 19:59, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8985-8989
> =
>
> IDTitle Result
> -
> 8985 Democratization (low AI version) REJECTED
> 8986 Democratization (high AI version) REJECTED
> 8987 I meant what I saidADOPTED
> 8988 Rice rewrite ADOPTED
> 8989 Rice disarmament ADOPTED
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 5.
>
> VOTING STRENGTHS
>
>
> Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
> #: player has voting strength 3
> $: player has voting strength 4
> %: player has voting strength 5
> ^: player has voting strength 6
> &: player has voting strength 7
> *: player has voting strength 8
>
> PROPOSALS
> =
>
> PROPOSAL 8985 (Democratization (low AI version))
> AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (1): 4st*
> AGAINST (7): Beokirby, G.&, Janet*, ais523^, juan$, nix$, snail^
> PRESENT (1): Murphy%
> BALLOTS: 9
> AI (F/A): 8/38 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: -0.667
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8986 (Democratization (high AI version))
> AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
> CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
> FOR (0):
> AGAINST (7): Beokirby, G., Janet, ais523, juan, nix, snail
> PRESENT (1): Murphy
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 0/21 (AI=3.0)
> POPULARITY: -0.875
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8987 (I meant what I said)
> AUTHOR: Janet
> CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
> FOR (7): Beokirby, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, juan, snail
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (1): nix
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 21/0 (AI=3.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.875
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8988 (Rice rewrite)
> AUTHOR: Janet
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (4): Janet*, Murphy%, juan$, snail^
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (3): Beokirby, ais523^, nix$
> BALLOTS: 7
> AI (F/A): 23/0 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.571
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8989 (Rice disarmament)
> AUTHOR: Janet
> CLASS: ORDINARY
> FOR (3): Janet*, ais523^, juan$
> AGAINST (2): Beokirby, snail^
> PRESENT (2): Murphy%, nix$
> BALLOTS: 7
> AI (F/A): 18/9 (AI=1.0)
> POPULARITY: 0.143
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
> [
> ais523: Conditional resolved: ais523 does not have 1 rice
> ]
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //
> ID: 8987
> Title: I meant what I said
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Janet
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2618 ("Promises") by inserting the following paragraph after
> the first paragraph:
>
> {
>
> The creation of promises is secured. The text of a promise CANNOT be
> altered after it is created.
>
> }
>
>
> [Prevent power escalation by modifying existing promises to do other
> things.]
>
> //
> ID: 8988
> Title: Rice rewrite
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Janet
> Co-authors: snail
>
>
> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole:
> {
> The Ricemastor is an office.
>
> Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly
> restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is
> owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed.
>
> An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week,
> specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set).
> When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set
> gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice
> down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list
> of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy
> it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan.
>
> An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An
> active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a
> contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir
> signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each
> rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it.
>
> A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs,
> the following happen in order:
> * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the
> earliest created), if any, is harvested.
> * All rice plans are destroyed.
>
> Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2
> rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice
> and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner
> three times, this rule immediately repeals itself.
> }
>
> [
> Changes:
> - Generally cleaned up wording
> - Handle rice at Lost and Found
> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case
> where a person is in both the up and down sets)
> - Use "CAN" for enabling
> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than
> "consent"
> - Added a clarity requ
OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8985-8989
RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8985-8989
=
IDTitle Result
-
8985 Democratization (low AI version) REJECTED
8986 Democratization (high AI version) REJECTED
8987 I meant what I saidADOPTED
8988 Rice rewrite ADOPTED
8989 Rice disarmament ADOPTED
I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
The quorum for all below decisions was 5.
VOTING STRENGTHS
Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted.
#: player has voting strength 3
$: player has voting strength 4
%: player has voting strength 5
^: player has voting strength 6
&: player has voting strength 7
*: player has voting strength 8
PROPOSALS
=
PROPOSAL 8985 (Democratization (low AI version))
AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (1): 4st*
AGAINST (7): Beokirby, G.&, Janet*, ais523^, juan$, nix$, snail^
PRESENT (1): Murphy%
BALLOTS: 9
AI (F/A): 8/38 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: -0.667
OUTCOME: REJECTED
PROPOSAL 8986 (Democratization (high AI version))
AUTHOR: Yachay Wayllukuq
CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
FOR (0):
AGAINST (7): Beokirby, G., Janet, ais523, juan, nix, snail
PRESENT (1): Murphy
BALLOTS: 8
AI (F/A): 0/21 (AI=3.0)
POPULARITY: -0.875
OUTCOME: REJECTED
PROPOSAL 8987 (I meant what I said)
AUTHOR: Janet
CLASS: DEMOCRATIC
FOR (7): Beokirby, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, juan, snail
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (1): nix
BALLOTS: 8
AI (F/A): 21/0 (AI=3.0)
POPULARITY: 0.875
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 8988 (Rice rewrite)
AUTHOR: Janet
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (4): Janet*, Murphy%, juan$, snail^
AGAINST (0):
PRESENT (3): Beokirby, ais523^, nix$
BALLOTS: 7
AI (F/A): 23/0 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.571
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 8989 (Rice disarmament)
AUTHOR: Janet
CLASS: ORDINARY
FOR (3): Janet*, ais523^, juan$
AGAINST (2): Beokirby, snail^
PRESENT (2): Murphy%, nix$
BALLOTS: 7
AI (F/A): 18/9 (AI=1.0)
POPULARITY: 0.143
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
[
ais523: Conditional resolved: ais523 does not have 1 rice
]
The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
//
ID: 8987
Title: I meant what I said
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2618 ("Promises") by inserting the following paragraph after
the first paragraph:
{
The creation of promises is secured. The text of a promise CANNOT be
altered after it is created.
}
[Prevent power escalation by modifying existing promises to do other
things.]
//
ID: 8988
Title: Rice rewrite
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors: snail
Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole:
{
The Ricemastor is an office.
Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly
restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is
owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed.
An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week,
specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set).
When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set
gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice
down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list
of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy
it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan.
An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An
active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a
contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir
signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each
rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it.
A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs,
the following happen in order:
* The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the
earliest created), if any, is harvested.
* All rice plans are destroyed.
Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2
rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice
and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner
three times, this rule immediately repeals itself.
}
[
Changes:
- Generally cleaned up wording
- Handle rice at Lost and Found
- Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case
where a person is in both the up and down sets)
- Use "CAN" for enabling
- Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than
"consent"
- Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures
- Removed Fancy Caps
]
//
ID: 8989
Title: Rice disarmament
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" by replacing "at least 2 rice"
with "at least 5 rice".
[Ensure each round takes at least a mont
OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
["blob" refers to the person who registered on or about 18 May 2023 and requested that nickname, not to the person who was registered at various times during the years 1996-2004 and nicknamed "Blob".] =Metareport= You can find an up-to-date version of this report at http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php Date of last report: 2023-05-28 Date of this report: 2023-06-04 MISCELLANEOUS INFO Filled offices: 18/18 (100.00%) Total officers: 9 Consolidation[1]: 2 Late reports: 2/14 (14.29%) [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 *4st 2023-05-252023-05-072 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 snail2023-05-252019-11-05 [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 2023-05-28[2] Arbitor Judicial matters 2023-06-04 CollectorStamps2023-06-01 Dream Keeper Dreams2023-06-01 Herald Radiance 2023-06-01 Promotor Proposal pool 2023-05-23 Referee Rule violations 2023-06-01 RegistrarPlayers, Fora 2023-05-31 Ricemastor Rice Plans2023-05-22 Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2023-06-04 Stonemason Stones2023-06-04 [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 2023-06-01 Notary Contracts 2023-04-29 ! RegistrarPlayer history2023-06-01 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.
Re: (@Stonemason) BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 4 Jun 2023
On 6/4/23 14:31, ais523 via agora-official wrote: > On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 14:24 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: >> THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) >> >> Stone Mossiness Owner Last Wielded Immune? >> --- - --- --- >> Power 4 ais523 2023-05-28 >> Soul 2 nix 2023-04-23 >> Sabotage 1 4st 2023-05-21 >> Minty 1 Agora Agora >> Protection 1 Agora 2023-05-07 Agora >> Recursion 1 Beokirby 2023-02-08 >> Hot Potato 1 Agora 2023-04-23 Agora >> Blank 1 ais523 2023-05-28 >> Anti-Equatorial 0 Agora 2023-05-28 Agora >> Radiance 2 snail 2023-06-01 > CoE: The Blank Stone has Mossiness 2 and the Power Stone has Mossiness > 5. (You seem to have forgotten to update the records for two of the > wieldings on 2023-05-28 22:30:54, even though they are listed in the > history.) > Mossiness isn't increased due to wieldings? Only for collection notices (and the Anti-Equatorial Stone, which I had forgotten about but isn't relevant this week). -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
(@Stonemason) BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 4 Jun 2023
On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 14:24 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) > > Stone Mossiness Owner Last Wielded Immune? > --- - --- --- > Power 4 ais523 2023-05-28 > Soul 2 nix 2023-04-23 > Sabotage 1 4st 2023-05-21 > Minty 1 Agora Agora > Protection 1 Agora 2023-05-07 Agora > Recursion 1 Beokirby 2023-02-08 > Hot Potato 1 Agora 2023-04-23 Agora > Blank 1 ais523 2023-05-28 > Anti-Equatorial 0 Agora 2023-05-28 Agora > Radiance 2 snail 2023-06-01 CoE: The Blank Stone has Mossiness 2 and the Power Stone has Mossiness 5. (You seem to have forgotten to update the records for two of the wieldings on 2023-05-28 22:30:54, even though they are listed in the history.) -- ais523
OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 4 Jun 2023
THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) StoneMossiness OwnerLast Wielded Immune? --- - --- --- Power4 ais523 2023-05-28 Soul 2 nix 2023-04-23 Sabotage 1 4st 2023-05-21 Minty1 Agora Agora Protection 1 Agora2023-05-07Agora Recursion1 Beokirby 2023-02-08 Hot Potato 1 Agora2023-04-23Agora Blank1 ais523 2023-05-28 Anti-Equatorial 0 Agora2023-05-28Agora Radiance 2 snail2023-06-01 PlayerBase Rockiness -- ais523 2 snail 2 Yachay Wayllukuq 2 beokirby 1 Player Reached For Time - --- --- Janet Minty2023-05-29 00:00:07 snail Minty2023-06-01 21:16:54 Summary of stone functions: PowerA specified player's strength is increased by 3 on referenda on ordinary proposals in their voting period. Soul A specified non-immune stone is stolen by the wielder, then the Soul Stone is transferred to the robbed player. Sabotage The AI of a specified AI-majority decision is increased by 1. MintyA specified player gains a stamp of eir own type. Protection A specified stone becomes immune (until the next Collection Notice). RecursionCan be wielded as any other stone. Hot Potato Grants he wielder 8 radiance, then is transferred to another player. BlankDoes nothing. Anti-Equatorial Steals the mossiest stone, then increases its own mossiness by one. ScoreA specified player's score is increased by 3. History: === 2023-06-04 18:20:32 Mossiness of Power, Soul, Sabotage, Minty, Protection, Recursion, Hot Potato, Blank, Radiance Stones incremented per collection notice. 2023-06-04 18:20:32 Anti-Equatorial Stone is transferred from ais523 to Agora per collection notice, resetting mossiness. 2023-06-04 18:20:32 Collection notice. 2023-06-01 21:16:54 [snail attempts to wield Anti-Equatorial Stone.] 2023-06-01 21:16:54 [snail attempts to wield Recursion Stone, specifying Soul Stone, specifying Anti-Equatorial Stone.] 2023-06-01 21:16:54 snail reaches for Minty Stone. 2023-06-01 21:16:54 snail wields Radiance Stone, specifying self. 2023-05-29 00:00:07 Janet reaches for Minty Stone. 2023-05-29 00:00:00 Base Rockiness of ais523, beokirby, snail, Yachay Wayllukuq increased by 1 due to Dream of Gardens. 2023-05-29 00:00:00 Beokirby gathers Recursion Stone, resetting eir Base Rockiness and the stone's mossiness. 2023-05-28 22:30:54 ais523 wields Blank Stone. 2023-05-28 22:30:54 ais523 wields Power Stone, specifying self. 2023-05-28 22:30:54 Power Stone is transferred from Janet to ais523 with Anti-Equatorial Stone. 2023-05-28 22:30:54 ais523 wields Anti-Equatorial Stone. 2023-05-28 21:53:36 Beokirby reaches for the Recursion Stone. 2023-05-22 00:01:00 [snail attempts to reach for the Hot Potato Stone.] 2023-05-22 00:01:00 snail wields Radiance Stone. 2023-05-22 00:01:00 snail reaches for Recursion Stone. 2023-05-22 00:00:00 Janet reaches for Recursion Stone. 2023-05-22 00:00:00 Base Rockiness of ais523, beokirby, snail, Yachay Wayllukuq increased by 1 due to Dream of Gardens. 2023-05-22 00:00:00 ais523 gathers Blank Stone, resetting eir Base Rockiness and the stone's mossiness. 2023-05-21 17:55:18 inalienableWright reaches for Hot Potato Stone. 2023-05-21 17:50:12 4st wields Sabotage Stone, specifying referendum on P8981. 2023-05-21 04:45:44 ais523 reaches for Blank Stone. 2023-05-19 03:01:23 Janet reaches for Recursion Stone. 2023-05-19 03:01:23 Janet wields Power Stone, specifying self. 2023-05-15 00:33:29 snail reaches for Minty Stone. 2023-05-15 00:33:29 snail wields Radiance Stone, specifying self. 2023-05-15 00:00:00 Base Rockiness of ais523 increased by 1 due to Dream of Gardens. 2023-05-15 00:00:00 4st gathers Sabotage Stone, resetting eir Base Rockiness and the stone's mossiness. 2023-05-12 05:18:12 P8964 results in destruction of Jockey Stone and creation of Minty Stone. 2023-05-08 22:08:27 Yachay Wayllukuq reaches for Anti-Equatorial Stone. 2023-05-08 20:12:04 Janet reaches for Protection Stone. 2023-05-08 20:12:04 Janet wields Power Stone, specifying self. 2023-05-08 16:42:46 4st reaches for Sabotage Stone. 2023-05-08 07:44:26 snail reaches for Recursion Stone. 2023-05-08 07:44:26 snail wields Radiance Stone, specifying self. 2023-05-08 00
OFF: [Stonemason] June Collection Notice
I hereby publish the following collection notice: All random choices are made using AgoraBot in a public channel on the Discord discussion forum. I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the best of my knowledge, the choices listed below had the required probability distributions. Escape Minimum: 5 StoneOwnerSmoothness Mossiness Slipperiness Escape Eligible? --- --- -- - Powerais5232 3 5 YES Soul nix 3 1 4 NO Sabotage 4st 4 0 4 NO MintyAgora 3 0 3 [Immune: Agora] Protection Agora 4 0 4 [Immune: Agora] RecursionBeokirby 4 0 4 NO Hot Potato Agora 5 0 5 [Immune: Agora] Blankais5230 0 0 NO Anti-Equatorial ais5235 0 5 YES Radiance snail 3 1 4 NO Stones that escape do so in the order they are listed below. The following stones are hereby transferred to Agora: Owned by ais523: Anti-Equatorial The mossiness of each other Stone is incremented by 1.
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Sun 04 Jun 2023
DEADLINES (details below)
---
4032 4st Motion to reconsiderOVERDUE Sun 04 Jun 2023 03:15:50
4034 Assigned to ais523 Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:25:34
4035 Assigned to G. Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:00
4036 Assigned to snail Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:43
4037 Assigned to snail Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:28:17
4038 Assigned to nix Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:00
4039 Assigned to Murphy Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:32
4040 Assigned to Janet Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:30:49
4041 Assigned to Janet Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:31:51
INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
4032 4st
4034 ais523
4035 G.
4037 snail
4038 nix
4039 Murphy
4041 Janet
[4030 Yachay - inactive]
OPEN CASES
---
4041 Assigned to Janet [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:31:51]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4041
In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without
additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was
last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at
cse.unsw.edu.au".
4040 Assigned to Janet [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:30:49]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4040
In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without
additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who
registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at
gmail dot com".
4039 Assigned to Murphy [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:32]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4039
I currently own the recursion stone.
4038 Assigned to nix [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:29:00]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4038
The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the
person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a
player.
4037 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:28:17]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4037
In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some
community.
4036 Assigned to snail [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:43]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4036
In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no
community.
4035 Assigned to G. [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:27:00]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4035
Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir
signature.
4034 Assigned to ais523 [Due Sun 11 Jun 2023 13:25:34]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4034
G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that
plan currently does not have G's signature.
4032 Motion to reconsider group-filed [Due Sun 04 Jun 2023 03:15:50]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4032
There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice.
RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix [Tue 30 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4033
There is a currently registered player named “blob”.
4031 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sun 21 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4031
This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot [Wed 31 May 2023]
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 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 21 May 2023]
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4029
There was an infraction noted in this message.
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
OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4041 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4041. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4041 === CFJ 4041 === In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:[now] == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4040 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4040. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4040 === CFJ 4040 === In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:[now] == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4039 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4039. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4039 === CFJ 4039 === I currently own the recursion stone. == Caller:snail Judge: Murphy == History: Called by snail: 01 Jun 2023 21:16:54 Assigned to Murphy: [now] == Caller's Evidence: snail wrote: > I wield the radiance stone. (This increases my radiance by 3.) > I reach for the Minty stone. > I wield the recursion stone as the soul stone, specifying the > anti-equatorial stone. > I wield the anti-equatorial stone. (This transfers the power stone to me.) - Recursion Stone (Monthly, 4): The Recursion Stone can be wielded once per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice. - Soul Stone (weekly, 3): When wielded, the Soul Stone is transferred to the owner of a different specified non-immune stone not owned by Agora, then that stone is transferred to the wielder. Caller's Arguments: Using the recursion stone as the soul stone seems to transfer the soul stone to the owner of the anti-equatorial stone, as that's what the rule says (the power of the soul stone, which is being copied, transfers the soul stone, not the recursion stone or perhaps "this stone"). But does it actually do that? If so, I own the recursion stone and ais523 now owns the soul stone. If not, my recursion stone was transferred to ais523. A real thinker, a conundrum, if you will. Will the practical reading prevail? Or the technical, textual one? ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4038 Assigned to nix
The below CFJ is 4038. I assign it to nix. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038 === CFJ 4038 === The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. == Caller:Janet Judge: nix == History: Called by Janet: 30 May 2023 21:27:23 Assigned to nix: [now] == Caller's Evidence: On 5/22/23 15:07, juan via agora-official wrote: > PLAYERS > > Active players: 14/21 > > 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 > + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail dot com > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com > + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com > + inalienableWright2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at mailfence > 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 ==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4037 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4037. I assign it to snail.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4037
=== CFJ 4037 ===
In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some
community.
==
Caller:ais523
Judge: snail
==
History:
Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13
Assigned to snail:[now]
==
[Linked to CFJ 4036]
Caller's Evidence:
This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two
communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than
four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade.
The relevant part of the tournament regulations is:
{{{
If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is
empty.
Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one
letter token and one number token that correspond to that
location's coordinates.
If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to
any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community,
e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its
founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that
starts with a different first letter than any existing community
by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor
CAN and SHALL do so by announcement.
A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place
a tile that would found a new community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a
single community, that tile belongs to that community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to
different communities, a merger happens.
When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the
merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is
the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community
that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The
other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles
belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and
begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X
(rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an
investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that
community immediately before the merger divided by the total
number of investments that exist for that community and times the
number of investments for that community that player owns. The
acquired communities and all investments in all acquired
communities are destroyed.
}}}
Caller's Arguments:
The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a
player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single
community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged
community.
However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that
states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any
community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of
the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes
scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or
FALSE if G6 is part of Jade.
I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that
founding a new community by placing a tile not adjacent to any existing
communities causes the placed tile to become part of the community
founded that way. It seems plausible that such tiles would be part of
no community, although that would completely break the tournament (both
because there would be no way to score and because most of the moves
that have happened so far would be illegal). The second CFJ is checking
for the possibility that this has happened.
==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4036 Assigned to snail
The below CFJ is 4036. I assign it to snail.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4036
=== CFJ 4036 ===
In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no
community.
==
Caller:ais523
Judge: snail
==
History:
Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13
Assigned to snail:[now]
==
[Linked to CFJ 4037]
Caller's Evidence:
This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two
communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than
four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade.
The relevant part of the tournament regulations is:
{{{
If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is
empty.
Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one
letter token and one number token that correspond to that
location's coordinates.
If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to
any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community,
e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its
founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that
starts with a different first letter than any existing community
by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor
CAN and SHALL do so by announcement.
A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place
a tile that would found a new community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a
single community, that tile belongs to that community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to
different communities, a merger happens.
When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the
merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is
the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community
that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The
other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles
belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and
begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X
(rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an
investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that
community immediately before the merger divided by the total
number of investments that exist for that community and times the
number of investments for that community that player owns. The
acquired communities and all investments in all acquired
communities are destroyed.
}}}
Caller's Arguments:
The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a
player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single
community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged
community.
However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that
states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any
community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of
the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes
scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or
FALSE if G6 is part of Jade.
I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that
founding a new community by placing a tile not adjacent to any existing
communities causes the placed tile to become part of the community
founded that way. It seems plausible that such tiles would be part of
no community, although that would completely break the tournament (both
because there would be no way to score and because most of the moves
that have happened so far would be illegal). The second CFJ is checking
for the possibility that this has happened.
==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4035 Assigned to G.
The below CFJ is 4035. I assign it to G..
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4035
=== CFJ 4035 ===
Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir
signature.
==
Caller:Juan
Judge: G.
==
History:
Called by Juan: 28 May 2023 00:32:29
Assigned to G.: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
>On 5/27/23 20:19, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business wrote:
>> I create, consent, and join the following contract, named “Juan's feeble
>> attempt at paradox”:
>>
>> {
>> Only juan is a party of this contract.
>>
>> Any party to this contract consents to all existing Rice Plans that do
>> not have eir signature.
>> }
==
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4034 Assigned to ais523
The below CFJ is 4034. I assign it to ais523.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4034
=== CFJ 4034 ===
G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that
plan currently does not have G's signature.
==
Caller:G.
Judge: ais523
==
History:
Called by G.: 27 May 2023 17:16:28
Assigned to ais523: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
G wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:21=E2=80=AFPM juan wrote:
>>
>> I create the following Rice Plan:
>>
>> {
>> Up Rice: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
>> Down Rice: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
>> }
>>
>> and consent to having my signature put in it.
>
> I consent to the above Rice Plan (to having my signature on it).
>
> If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I withdraw my consent from the
> above Rice Plan.
Caller's Arguments:
Granting consent in most cases is described in Rule 2519/2, and CFJ
4013 recently found that, even without that rule, the general concept
of "giving consent" requires positive evidence of consent, and neither
silence nor ambiguity should be inferred as granting consent.
However, *withdrawing* consent is another matter. In particular, you
CANNOT withdraw consent from a contract without the unanimous
agreement of parties or unless the contract text itself explicitly
allows it. Otherwise, the contract wouldn't be a "binding" agreement,
by the basic definition of "binding".
Rule 2682/0 contains this clause:
> Rice Plans can have
> Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
> Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
> consenting to it.
This *anticipates* that consent could be withdrawn from Rice Plans,
but provides no mechanism for doing so. My belief is that this is
regulated (the Ricemastor tracks signatures) so it is currently
IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw consent. However, in the event that the above
rules text enables the "natural" withdrawal of consent by various
means, there is no standard of communication to be inferred, no "good
of the game" reason to allow for consent withdrawal, and no "good of
the game" reason to decide that the burden of proof is for or against
withdrawal succeeding. So it could quite easily lead to PARADOXICAL
if my conditional above is indeterminate.
Another possibility is that by making a "consent withdrawal" as a
paradoxical statement, is is no longer clear from context as per R2519
that consent exists, which effectively removes it (therefore a withdrawal
attempt that is paradoxical still results in withdrawal).
==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4033 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4033 === There is a currently registered player named “blob”. == Caller:Juan Judge: nix Judgement: IRRELEVANT == History: Called by Juan: 25 May 2023 20:42:33 Assigned to nix: 25 May 2023 23:38:04 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix: 30 May 2023 19:44:29 == Caller's Evidence: This thread (linking to end): https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg55883.html Caller's Arguments: Apparently, it is the first time in agoran history that a player game emself the same name as a previous player *long enough* for it to become an issue. Now there is controversy: there is long-standing tradition both in letting people choose eir own names and asking for people to choose unique names. Names are not defined by the rules. There is, however, an old CFJ stablishing that names are identifiers that uniquely specify players across all contexts in Agora. The question is: is this enforceable? Besides not defining them, the rules don't even *mention* names; instead opting to make officers “uniquely identify” players. So, in my view the crux of the matter for this CFJ is to determine whether refering to a current player by a name that a previous player had, in a context where only registered players are mentioned, *is* actually uniquely identifying the current player. -- Judge nix's Arguments: I judge this CFJ IRRELEVANT. The rules do not mention and do not care about person's names. Reports and actions need to clearly differentiate who they are referring to, but nothing says that needs to be done by names. It's not regulated, nor is it tracked. The closest we get to tracking anything like names is the Registrar's report, which must include "information sufficient to identify and contact each player." This could be many things, such as email address, assigned identifiers, registration date, or many other solutions. Some are clearly more useful than others, but all seem allowable. It also seems to be that nobody is debating whether this person is called blob. I could be wrong here, but the debate appears to be about whether that is ambiguous. Meaningful questions may arise in specific usages of this name as an identifier. It may very well be ambiguous with the previous player also known as blob, especially in instances of reports that mention both (Herald, Registrar, and Rulekeepor monthlies perhaps) or in actions that can refer to any persons, not just current players (titles, ribbons). These deserve their own CFJs when they occur, with arguments about the specific instance. There's also a very valid concern about whether this muddies the clarity of historical documents, or historical research. I think this concern needs to be balanced with the long-standing tradition that the caller mentions of allowing players to choose their own name, and of referring to players primarily by chosen name. This appears to be a conflict between individual rights Agora gives, and the best interest of Agora long-term. Both seem to be equally strong claims about the best interests of Agora to me. Ideally this would be resolved by agreement on conventions, either informally or legislatively. In any case, I believe this CFJ is both the wrong question and the wrong approach to addressing this conflict. I beseech interested parties to seek common ground and to ask CFJs on specific instances of potential ambiguity/conflict that more directly interact with the rules. When it becomes clear how often this is actually an issue (or not) for play, it may become easier to agree on standards. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay, affirmed by Moot
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === 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: 21 May 2023 14:06:53 Judged TRUE by Yachay:21 May 2023 17:35:04 Entered into Moot:22 May 2023 19:28:28 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot: 31 May 2023 19:12:46 == 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. -- Judge Yachay's Arguments: Guidance in Rule 217 states: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and the new ritual number. The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint once, or that you can anoint multiple times. Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to permit it as evidence for this case: 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. However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": 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 woul
