Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
> On May 18, 2020, at 21:20, Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:20 PM James Cook via agora-discussion >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:49, Rebecca via agora-business >>> wrote: I intend with 4 support to enter CFJ 3831 into moot Link: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831 -- From R. Lee >>> >>> I think we need 5 support now. The last judgement on CFJ 3831 was >>> assigned just over 3 weeks ago on April 26. >>> >>> I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. >>> I intend with 6 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. >> >> I support each intent. >> >> -Aris >> > > Well, as do i > -- > From R. Lee As do I.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
On 5/18/20 9:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: >> I think we need 5 support now. The last judgement on CFJ 3831 was >> assigned just over 3 weeks ago on April 26. >> >> I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. >> I intend with 6 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > I support each intent. As do I. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
By my math this eliminates 108 words from the rules, and more importantly
makes announcement default so it doesn't need to be included in new rules (and
therefore can't accidentally be left out). I think this needs some careful
vetting to make sure it doesn't break anything.
I submit the following proposal:
{
Title: No More 'By Announcement'
AI: 3.0
Author: nch
Amend Rule 478 "Fora" by replacing:
Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously
and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the
time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including
sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the
message, unless otherwise specified.
with:
Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform, any attempt
to perform that action is EFFECTIVE if, and only if, e unambiguously and
clearly specifies the action in a public message and announces that e
performs it UNLESS the rule specifies the action can be performed
"without announcement". Otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE.
Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time
date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including
sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message,
unless otherwise specified.
Amend Rules 2609 "Temporary CFJ Setup", 869 "How to Join and Leave Agora",
2595 "Performing a Dependent Action", 2350 "Proposals", 2607 "Proposal
Chambers", 2597 "Line-item Veto", 2141 "Role and Attributes of Rules", 107
"Initiating Agoran Decisions", 683 "Voting on Agoran Decisions", 208
"Resolving Agoran Decisions", 2168 "Extending the Voting Period", 1006
"Offices", 2154 "Election Procedure", 2143 "Official Reports and Duties", 2201
"Self-Ratification", 2555 "Blots", 2478 "Vigilante Justice", 2479 "Official
Justice", 2557 "Sentencing Guidelines", 991 "Calls for Judgement", 591
"Delivering Judgements", 911 "Motions and Moots", 2175 "Judicial Retraction
and Excess", 2492 "Recusal", 2246 "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", 1742
"Contracts", 2577 "Asset Actions", 2579 "Fee-based Actions", 2496 "Rewards",
2499 "Welcome packages", 2585 "Birthday Gifts", 2549 "Auction Initiation",
2550 "Bidding", 2552 "Auction Termination", 2584 "Free Auctions", 2532
"Zombies", 2449 "Winning the Game", 2553 "Win by Paradox", 2438 "Ribbons",
2602 "Glitter", 2480 "Festivals", 103 "The Speaker", 2451 "Executive Orders",
2464 "Tournaments", and 2495 "The Birthday Tournament" by removing all
instances of ", by announcement,", "by announcement,", ", by announcement",
and "by announcement" in that order.
}
--
nch
Re: BUS: [Dragon] To the moon!
On 5/16/20 11:45 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > I become a party to the Dragon Corporation. > > I buy 18 shares by paying a 10-Coin fee to the Dragon Corporation 18 times. I buy 9 shares by paying a 10 coin fee to the Dragon Corporation 9 times. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
On 5/18/20 9:14 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. There are 5 supporters: Aris, R. Lee, PSS, Jason, and nch. I do so (enter the judgement in CFJ 3831 into moot). -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Moot Solidarity
I support all current attempts to enter CFJ 3831 into a moot. I haven't really been following the arguments here but I think it's a good idea to do a moot just on principle that several people seem invested in doing so. The whole point of the judgment system is community closure. -- nch
Re: BUS: [Proposal] No More 'By Announcement'
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:55:03 AM CDT nch via agora-business wrote:
> By my math this eliminates 108 words from the rules, and more importantly
> makes announcement default so it doesn't need to be included in new rules
> (and therefore can't accidentally be left out). I think this needs some
> careful vetting to make sure it doesn't break anything.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: No More 'By Announcement'
> AI: 3.0
> Author: nch
>
I withdraw this proposal. It needs to be AI=3.1, but I'll wait for feedback to
resubmit.
--
nch
Re: BUS: [Dragon] To the moon!
On Tue, 19 May 2020 at 15:50, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 5/16/20 11:45 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > > I become a party to the Dragon Corporation. > > > > I buy 18 shares by paying a 10-Coin fee to the Dragon Corporation 18 times. > > > I buy 9 shares by paying a 10 coin fee to the Dragon Corporation 9 times. Here is my weekly report as President of Dragon Corporation: Share ownership: Owner Shares - - Aris 2 Falsifian 18 Jason 11 Nobody owns any bonds or banknotes. History of DRGN shares (not self-ratifying): Mar 01 2020 23:13: Warrigal purchased 3 shares of DRGN and became president. Mar 10 2020 01: Jason purchased 3 shares. Mar 21 2020 01:53: Warrigal sold 1 share of DRGN, causing Jason to become president. Apr 23 2020 02:04: Warrigal's 2 shares of DRGN are destroyed as e deregisters. May 17 2020 03:46: Falsifian purchased 18 shares of DRGN and became president. May 19 2020 15:50: Jason purchased 9 shares of DRGN. - Falsifian
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 6:54:22 PM CDT Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > I love that this whole argument is moot: > > - The practical issue has self-ratified since the judgement, so is moot. > > - The arguments are so specific to a certain sort of ambiguity that > there's likely no applicable precedent, so are moot. > > - The judge, who would remain the judge upon remand, is no even longer a > player, so eir opinion is moot. > > - Conclusion: Moot is a lovely word: moot, moot, moot, moot, moot. > > > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in CFJ > 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 > (that is, a Moot). > > Case at: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831, also > included in full below. > > For this decision: > vote collector: Arbitor > quorum: 5 > voting method: first-past-the-post > valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote, > as are conditional votes). > > > [Editorial: It's very likely that REMAND will just delay the case until > Alexis can be recused a week later.] > > Have fun mooting! I vote endorse G. -- nch
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:03 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/19/20 5:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in CFJ > > 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 > > (that is, a Moot). > > > > Case at: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831, also > > included in full below. > > > > For this decision: > >vote collector: Arbitor > >quorum: 5 > >voting method: first-past-the-post > >valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote, > > as are conditional votes). > > I vote PRESENT. Haven't really been following these events. I vote REMAND.
BUS: hi
I register -grok
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On 5/19/20 7:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > For this decision: > vote collector: Arbitor > quorum: 5 > voting method: first-past-the-post > valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote, > as are conditional votes). I vote REMIT. I cause ATMunn to vote REMIT. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On 5/13/20 5:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > === CFJ 3833 === > > In the above message, Trigon created a proposal. > > == [I just got rid of the bit with examples of creations that are non-atomic; those are arguably less important to have as precedent than the ones that definitely are atomic.] I assign the following judgement in CFJ 3833: CFJ 3744 held that, if a player does the equivalent of writing the optional specifications of a proposal as separate speech acts when creating it, any invalid optional specifications revert to the default value. It also held that, if the speech act of creating the proposal is phrased as an single action and is constrained enough, the creation succeeds or fails atomically. I do not believe this is the conclusion I would have reached, but I am nevertheless bound by precedent. Rule 2350 enables creating proposals "by announcement". According to Rule 478, this means a player CAN perform it "by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it". In eir message, Trigon appears to "clearly specify" the action of creating a proposal with title "Agora plays table tennis", AI 0.1, no coauthors, and the provided text. It also appears that e has specified only a single action (creating a proposal), rather than the multiple actions required by CFJ 3744 to permit non-atomic specifications (I create a proposal, I specify an attribute, I specify another attribute). Given that the AI was invalid, and the creation was phrased as a single act, under CFJ 3744, Trigon did not create a proposal in eir message. I find FALSE. More generally, I find that any shorthand in which the creation of the proposal is phrased as a single action (even those including shorthand) qualifies as atomic under CFJ 3744, i.e. that speech actions creating optional specifications must be made explicit in order to be non-atomic. This means that all of the following are atomic proposal creations: * "I create/submit/etc. the following proposal: [shorthand]" * "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with the following attributes: [shorthand]" * "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with title 'A creative title', AI 0, and text 'Do something.'" * "H. Promotor, I do hereby submit unto you this most honorable proposal, with the hopes that it be adopted: [shorthand]" Evidence: Rule 2350/12 [Excerpt]: > A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and > other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement, > specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following > attributes: > > * An associated title. > > * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the > author). > > * An adoption index. > > * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its > creation. Rule 478/38 [Excerpt]: > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by > announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously > and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs > it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On 5/19/20 8:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > I assign the following judgement in CFJ 3833: I award myself Blue glitter for this judgement. -- Jason Cobb
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On 5/19/20 5:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in CFJ 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 (that is, a Moot). Case at: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831, also included in full below. For this decision: vote collector: Arbitor quorum: 5 voting method: first-past-the-post valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). I vote PRESENT. Haven't really been following these events. -- Trigon
BUS: [Proposal] Mooting moots
I submit the following proposal, "Mooting moots", co-author R. Lee, AI-1.7: Amend Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by deleting all the text from "If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that judgement into Moot" to the end of the rule. Amend Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by appending: If a CFJ: * has a judgement assigned; and * the judgement has been in effect less than 28 days; and * the CFJ has had a Motion to Reconsider group-filed for it while it has been assigned to its current judge; then any player CAN remit the case with 2 Agoran Consent. The case becomes open again, and the current judge is recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in judging. Change the title of R911 to "Judicial Reconsideration".
BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387 CoE
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 1:13 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8377j R. Lee 2.0 Burden + Accurate Naming > 8378f R. Lee 2.0 Bug Fixing IAR Writ > 8379p Murphy 1.0 Expand wins by paradox > 8380p Muprhy 1.0 Justice for R. Lee > 8381p Murphy 1.0 You Tried > 8382f nch 1.0 The Webmastor > 8383p Trigon 1.0 Agora plays table tennis > 8384j P.S.S. 1.0 Bones of Criminals > 8385e Jason1.0 Slaying the dragon > 8386* G. 3.0 Restraining Motions > 8387l Aris, P.S.S. 1.0 Defense Against the Dark Arts CoE: Proposal 8387 was never distributed. Letting it self-ratify into existence was tempting, but I have a reputation for official candor to maintain. I thought there was another error, but can't seem to find it. -Aris -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > I vote as follows, and act on behalf of pikhq to vote as follows: > > On 5/14/2020 1:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > > 8379p Murphy 1.0 Expand wins by paradox > > AGAINST. When I judged PARADOXICAL in the first place, R. Lee wrote > "easiest win ever". I.e., there's the potential for "accidental" wins if > a weird loophole that nobody expected makes for a PARADOXICAL judgement, > and whomever gets it is the person who "accidentally" called it first. If > a person genuinely thinks e has something, e should take the active effort > to set up an appropriate cfj statement to show that e truly "found" the > paradox, as at least a first filter. I change my vote on this proposal to PRESENT. -Aris
Re: BUS: hi
On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:24:36 PM CDT grok \(caleb vines\) via agora- business wrote: > I register > > > -grok I cause grok to receive one welcome package. -- nch
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8377-8387 CoE
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 7:45 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I thought there was another error, but can't seem to find it. > > > > -Aris > > 8382 has the wrong title in the full text section. CoE: Proposal 8382 was never validly distributed. CoE: The proposal pool report was incomplete. -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:03 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/19/20 7:54 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > For this decision: > > vote collector: Arbitor > > quorum: 5 > > voting method: first-past-the-post > > valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote, > > as are conditional votes). I vote REMIT. -Aris
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
I vote REMIT On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 9:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I love that this whole argument is moot: > > - The practical issue has self-ratified since the judgement, so is moot. > > - The arguments are so specific to a certain sort of ambiguity that > there's likely no applicable precedent, so are moot. > > - The judge, who would remain the judge upon remand, is no even longer a > player, so eir opinion is moot. > > - Conclusion: Moot is a lovely word: moot, moot, moot, moot, moot. > > > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in CFJ > 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 > (that is, a Moot). > > Case at: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831, also > included in full below. > > For this decision: > vote collector: Arbitor > quorum: 5 > voting method: first-past-the-post > valid options: AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote, > as are conditional votes). > > > [Editorial: It's very likely that REMAND will just delay the case until > Alexis can be recused a week later.] > > Have fun mooting! > > === CFJ 3831 === > > Murphy published a valid Notice of Honour today. > > == > > Caller:Aris > > Judge: Alexis > Judgement: FALSE > > == > > History: > > Called by Aris: 25 Apr 2020 06:35:08 > Assigned to Alexis: 25 Apr 2020 20:05:03 > Judged FALSE by Alexis: 26 Apr 2020 18:41:54 > Motion to reconsider self-filed: 26 Apr 2020 18:41:54 > Judged FALSE by Alexis: 26 Apr 2020 18:41:54 > > == > > Caller's Evidence: > > On 25 Apr 2020 02:46:37 GMT Edward Murphy wrote in agora-business: > > This is a Notice of Honour: > > -1 kudo: ATMunn, randomly chosen zombie > > +1 kudo: PSS, testing the finger-pointing rules in an interesting way > > > Caller's Arguments: > > In eir purported Notice, Murphy referenced kudos. Kudos are currently > undefined. It is unclear whether the Notice specifies players who are to > gain and lose honor, as required by Rule 2510, or instead specifies > players who are to gain and lose kudos. I think it's probably clear > enough, but that's ambiguous. > > -- > > Judge Alexis's Arguments: > > The requirement in Rule 2150 is, as Aris claims, to publish a notice > announcing which player gains and loses karma. The karma system is similar > to an earlier system which used kudos, and an even earlier one which used > props, so there is clearly some similarity there. > > As two hypotheticals, we can consider whether Muphy's notice would have > worked if e had specified a) some rule-defined asset/switch or b) a word > that doesn't have Agoran connotations at all. > > If Murphy's notice had specified ±1 coin, then it clearly would fail. The > notice would be specifying who gains and loses coins, something quite > well-defined, rather than karma. > > If it had instead specified ±1 XP, then I think it would also fail. It is > not clear, in the context of the current Agoran rules, what "XP" is (and > to my knowledge, it has never been defined in a way that would make it > make any sense here; if that is not the case, for the sake of this > judgment, assume that it is). But it seems to me that it would be > unreasonable to interpret "XP" as "karma" in this context. > > So the only way that Murphy's notice could succeed would be if "kudo"'s > history in some way privileged it to operate as a substitute for karma. > This might be possible if there had been a custom regarding it, or if the > use of kudos was recent history. But neither of these is the case, and the > modern playerbase cannot be expected to know the full details of Agora's > history. So I rule that this is FALSE as the notice does not clearly > specify that it is manipulating karma. > > == > -- >From R. Lee
BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3831 enters the mootiest moot ever
On 5/19/2020 4:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I hereby initiate an Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in CFJ > 3831's current judgement of FALSE, delivered by Alexis on 26 Apr 2020 > (that is, a Moot). If anyone cares to submit arguments referencing their vote, I'll group them by vote result e.g. "Majority opinions" or "Minority opinions" in the case file, before whatever happens next with the case. That's one issue with moots - the next judge (if there is a next judge) has to dig to find out why the vote turned out that way, because there's no record. (So +1 kudos to anyone who does so). -Arbitor
Re: BUS: hi
On 5/19/20 9:24 PM, grok (caleb vines) via agora-business wrote: I register Welcome (back) to Agora! -- Trigon
