Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE

[omd]

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532:

I intend to call for reconsideration with two support.

The judgement deserves credit for its ample demonstration of how the
final result - shinies being assets - is supported by *all four* of
game custom, common sense, past judgements, and the best interests of
the game.  Nevertheless, it’s too divorced from the text to satisfy
me.  It starts out by quoting the operative clause, but thereafter
devotes itself entirely to analyzing the four factors; it makes no
attempt to analyze the wording, and doesn't propose a specific
definition of “solely because” that justifies the result.  After all,
the four factors only apply “where the text is silent, inconsistent,
or unclear”.  While there’s certainly *some* inclarity here, that’s
not a license to apply the factors willy-nilly to the entire meaning
of the rule; our custom is more conservative than that.  The factors
should only be used to resolve the inclarity - that is, to decide on a
meaning among the plausible alternatives.

I suspect it’s entirely possible to come up with a definition that
comports with the judge’s result (and establish its plausibility), and
indeed that the judge would be capable of doing so on reconsideration
- but e has not done so here.

(Or in other words, the judge needs to explain why eir interpretation
“doesn't violate the plain meaning of any of the rules in question”,
as e claims.)

BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE

[Aris Merchant]

Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532:

This call for judgment inquires whether the "existing solely" clause
(hereinafter The Clause) of Rule 2166, which defines assets, prevents assets
referenced by multiple rules from existing. I turn first to the relevant text
of the rule, which is as follows:

  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
  existence.

Clearly The Clause prevents, say, the sun from being defined as an asset. This
is good, because if the sun could be an asset the rules might make it
destructible, and then we'd be forced to accept, for game purposes, that there
was no sun. It would be even more problematic if we accepted persons, and
therefore players, as assets. Obviously the rules are free to make such
definitions anyway (although we might argue over whether they would have any
effect, considering the interests of the game). However, in the past
we've allowed contracts to define assets, explaining the necessity of such
restrictions.

The Clause prevents another class of situations as well. It prevents
two different rules from defining the same asset. In older forms, it has done
the same for a rule and a contract (CFJs 1922-1923). The question raised here is
whether even referencing an asset would create such a situation. This raises
interesting questions about the way we interpret the rules. It has long been
understood that even if a term used in the rules is undefined, we are obliged to
try our best to figure out what it means. Thus, even without the rule defining
shinies, we would "interpret them into existence". Without shinies, pending
would be impossible, and we would be unable to pay out salaries, among other
problems. So, it is apparent that we might consider shinies existent even
without the intervention of their defining rule, arguably triggering The Clause.

The historical interpretation of The Clause, however, does not support this
argument. There are no precedents that clearly apply to this situation, although
in CFJ 3381 the Honorable Judge ais523 appears to assume in passing that such
things are possible. But our current situation is not unprecedented, there are
merely no applicable _judicial_ precedents. Rule 2166 is not a new rule. It was,
in fact, a rather aged rule at time it was repealed, and it only seems new to
us because of its recent reenactment. One example of a similar situation is the
point, which was the general unit of currency under this [1] ruleset. I can find
no record of anyone complaining that they didn't exist.

If we were to ignore history, would we find? Well, the idea that we interpret
terms in the rules in a way that gives them effect is largely a matter of
tradition. No rule says that, in the absence of a definition from either
conventional English or the rules, we have to try to interpret the rules the way
they are intended to be read. Another consideration is the interests of the
game; certainly it would seem to be in the game's best interest to have a
definition for shinies, and all of the clarifications of their behavior that
come with it.

I know all the Platonists (if that is the right term, perhaps Logicians would
be better) in the crowd out jeering at me for refusing to consider the matter
logically, a priori, from the wording on up. I will therefore close with two
arguments that I hope will placate them. First, the doctrine that the rules and
the terms in them must be given meaning in accordance with common sense exists
to make the game playable. If every typo or invented but undefined term stopped
the game, then the game would long since have ended. We have to keep playing,
and in order to keep playing, we often need to interpret the rules the way they
are intended to be read. The core thesis of the doctrine is that the rules need
to have their common sense meaning; using it to rob the rules of what they are
plainly intended to mean violates that principle. It would essentially be using
the doctrine to violate its own basis for existence.

Second, and perhaps most convincingly, the argument that the rules conflict
with each other is only valid under circumstances that are themselves internally
inconsistent. If we view the rules Platonically/logically, then only one rule
attempts to define assets. If we consider the rules Pragmatically/legally, then
their common sense intent shines through. It is only when we look at one rule
one way and another rule another way that a contradiction between rules arises.
As it is a longstanding principle of rule interpretation that, if reasonably
possible, we will attempt to construe the rules so that no contradiction occurs,
it is sensible to here use the only consistent interpretation, which also
happens to be the only one that doesn't violate the plain meaning of any of
the rules in question.

I conclude my judgment by noting that there may in fact be one judicial
precedent that has some real bearing on this 

BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

CoE: I published this report this month.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 3:21 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> Registrar   Y Player history  2017-05-31  !
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

BUS: CFJ judgement

[V.J Rada]

I call for reconsideration (again) and submit the following judgement of
FALSE

1. Facts
Despite (at the time, at least) not being the Surveyor, Cuddlebeam
attempted to
initiate 5 auctions for Estates. Four of these were of Estates owned by
Agora, and one was owned by a private party. E then called this CFJ to
determine whether any auction was indeed ongoing. While an auction is
currently ongoing, it is an oft-repeated maxim that CFJs shall be judged on
the facts at the calling of the CFJ. The question in this case is whether a
player can initiate auctions for any Estate by announcement and if not,
whether they may initate auctions for only private Estates or only Agoran
estates.
2.The meaning of the word auction
Without resorting to any dictionaries, an auction means to me a sale in
which people bid for an item and the person who bid the most wins the item.
A dictionary definition of auction is similar: an auction is "a public sale
in which goods or property are sold to the highest bidder." The previously
run auction for Estates worked in a similar way. There has been some
controversy about whether or not an auction with no possibility of sale is
indeed an auction. I ruled that it was not. PSS contended that because
under the current rules' provision for auctions, the auction itself did not
transfer Estates, my interpretation would render all auctions invalid.
However, I here affirm my previous ruling. The player transferring the
Estate to emself is similar to a person at a car auction grabbing the item
they bought. Even if transfer is not guarenteed, it is likely. I hold that
under the common sense, dictionary and game practise meaning of the word
"auction", a purported auction that is unlikely or impossible to result in
a transfer of the auctioned Estate
is no auction at all.
3.Josh's Estate
I hold that the Estate Josh T holds cannot be transferred and thus no
auction is taking place for the Estate of Antegria (under the facts at the
time of the calling). The Rules state that "A player who owns an Estate can
and may transfer it to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by
announcement.". This clearly regulates the transferring of Estates and
places two conditions on it ("a player who owns an Estate" and "by
announcement". It is clear neither CB nor anyone else may transfer Josh's
estate to anyone else because they do not meet the restrictions. Fun fact:
when an organization is transferred an Estate, it can never leave. rito plz.
4. Agoran Estates
Agora is not a sentient being (yet) and cannot act on its own behalf to
transfer Estates it owns. Therefore the rules create another way for
Estates to be transferred. By an auction initiated by the Surveyor. However
it also makes the judgement that this should only be done by the Surveyor,
once a month. CB is not the Surveyor, and he is attempting to initiate four
auctions at once. It is clear that the rules "limit" the action of
initiating an auction to the Surveyor. Previous judgements and messages
have invoked Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant, but that statutory cannon
applies to two conflicting statutes. I would instead invoke the principle
of both Agora and common law systems that a Rule or legislative decision
overrides any murky general ability to do something. CB's attempted actions
are outside the regulatory framework and therefore not effective. It was
clearly the intent of the writers of the rule for one Auction to happen at
once, and CB's action would disrupt the intent.

FALSE

BUS: Thesis "Spivak Culture" Submission (Attn. Herald)

[Cuddle Beam]

This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture".

I intend to apply for a degree.

humble agoran farmer gettng that edumacation lol.

Let's go!:

---*---

Spivak is very common in Agora, evidenced by its widespread use throughout
the current Ruleset and its history.

However, how did these niche pronouns arise to become so prominent in the
Agoran (and nomic) context?

Additionally, Spivak is discouraged in BlogNomic, the other largest nomic
currently on the web, via “[Players] may correct obvious spelling and
typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at
any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the
singular “they”.

How have they grown to take opposite approaches to the same problem?

Let’s delve into the history of it, to uncover the roots of these cultures.

---*---

The game of Nomic was first introduced to the public in the column of
Metamagical Themas (published in the Scientific American) of Douglas
Hofstadter, in June 1982, when excerpts from a book (still unpublished at
the time) by the game's creator Peter Suber were printed and discussed. [1]

Additionally, Douglas Hofstadter has an impassioned chapter in Metamagical
Themas about gender-neutral language. [1]

In those days, that was what brought people to Nomic, so there has been
likely a tight relationship between Hofstadter’s writings (the
gender-neutral language chapter in particular) and the game he revealed
there as well: Nomic. This is further evidenced by mentions that in Nomic
World, use of Spivak was a conscious homage to them. [2]

Agora arose from Nomic World, which started on the 9th of October, 1992. In
its initial Ruleset, it used the conventional singular “they” to refer to
other people throughout, with no use of Spivak whatsoever [3], for example:

“When a Judge has been selected, they shall have 3 days in which to accept
or refuse their appointment as Judge.”

“Once a Judge is selected, (ie has accepted their selection) they then have
exactly one week to post an official Judgement on the issue for which their
Judgement has been invoked.”

However, the Ruleset at the 04 Nov 1992 shows a first (and single) evidence
of Spivak use [4], here:

"Rule 1047. [mutable] by Blob, last changed Tue Nov  3 13:19:28 1992

New players

New players begin with zero points.

A new player is a player who registers for the first time. If the player has

been registered within the past 6 weeks, then e is not counted as a new

player."

Additionally, another single sign of Spivak use emerged on the Ruleset at
December 11th [5] (Again, by "Blob", suggesting that they might be the
originator of Spivak use that eventually flowed into Agora).

*Rule 1108. [mutable] by Blob, last changed Fri Dec 11 16:29:23 1992

Playing Tag

---

I propose the following mutable rule be enacted:

At the passing of this rule, a player is selected at random from all
recently

active players. The player becomes "it".

At all times thereafter, there must be one and only one player who is

currently "it". This player then has the option of "tagging" another

registered player, who is online and in the same room as "it".

The tagged player then becomes "it" (except as outlined below), and the
player

who tagged em is no longer "it".

There is no way for any player, other than "it", to know who is "it" at any

given time, until such time as they are tagged by "it".

If "it" tags a player who has been "it" in the past hour, then the tagged

player does not become "it", and the player who was "it" stays that way.

If a player who is "it" is deregistered, another "it" is selected randomly

from all recently active players.

A player who is "it" is to be informed that they are "it" whenever they
logon

to the game.

However, those are the only registered cases, with all other pronoun use
being the conventional "they".

Further information about how Agora inherited Spivak can be seen here, via
the following mention by Chuck Carroll (Agora's Originator) [6]:

"I don't believe I took the idea of using Spivak pronouns in the Initial
Ruleset  from any other source than Nomic World. Although the use of Spivak
pronouns may have been sparse within the Nomic World ruleset, I believe
there were a few players using Spivak as their preferred pronouns within
Nomic World, and thus Nomic World players who were coming over to the game
that would come to be called Agora were familiar enough with Spivak
pronouns that they were understandable."

I don't remember specifically, but I suspect I chose Spivak pronouns
because at the time I didn't like the singular "they" as a gender-neutral
pronoun and found Spivak pronouns preferable, at least in a group where
there was already knowledge of them. (I have since come around and fully
endorse singular "they" in use outside of Agora.)

Chuck"

Agora’s Initial Ruleset (30th of June, 1993, by Chuck Carroll) has
exclusive use of