Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

[V.J Rada]

I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to the
email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to attempt to
gain control of any player at the exclusion of all other players.

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:15 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah yeah apologies. The last one was unintentional because that's
> what I was actually doing originally and forgot to change it. This one
> was wrong of me.
>
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also, V.J, stop the confusing thread titles. They're extremely
>> annoying, not to mention somewhat rude, and they don't work anyway.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:10 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> I point the finger at Quazie.
>>>
>>> Fair enough, I figured this would happen.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if it's two actions, and we map "I do A and B" into "I do A. I do B."
>>>> then it's also possible that A succeeds and B fails.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's more the general case:  if there's two possible message
>>>> interpretations, and the two interpretations differ in legal effect, the
>>>> whole thing fails.  So it's likely, "it's uncertain whether it's one or
>>>> two actions, and one versus two actions would trigger the Agency
>>>> differently and have a different net outcome, so it's 0 actions".
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>>>> I believe Cuddle Beam would be equally satisfied if there were two 
>>>>> actions,
>>>>> feeding and fanning, in either order - but i'm uncertain if e'd be equally
>>>>> satisfied with just a fan, or just a feed - so if the action was a single
>>>>> action then it would count, but if it was two actions then the ordering
>>>>> differential would make it have no effect, and thus likely be 0 actions?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:28 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Maybe this is helpful.  The following Rule used to explicitly guide 
>>>>> play.
>>>>>   We repealed it, but basically when it came up in CFJ after repeal, 
>>>>> we
>>>>>   said "the rules are silent, but it's sensible so we can just keep 
>>>>> playing
>>>>>   the same way by precedent".  (I don't know the actual CFJ history 
>>>>> though).
>>>>>   I like the way this rule explicitly defers to "the discretion of a 
>>>>> judge":
>>>>>
>>>>>   Rule 1527/3 (Power=1)
>>>>>   Timing of Multiple Events in One Message
>>>>>
>>>>>  Whenever a message contains more than one action -- such as a
>>>>>  notification, report, or other communication -- on which the
>>>>>  Rules place some legal significance, the actions in that 
>>>>> message
>>>>>  shall be taken to have been sent sequentially in the order 
>>>>> which
>>>>>  they appear in the message.
>>>>>
>>>>>  If a message attempts to perform multiple actions 
>>>>> simultaneously
>>>>>  without explicitly stating a specific order for the actions,
>>>>>  then the attempt shall be considered ambiguous and without
>>>>>  effect if the gamestate would be substantively different for 
>>>>> any
>>>>>  two orderings of the actions. For the purposes of this test, 
>>>>> the
>>>>>  actual order the actions are performed in is not considered
>>>>>  substantive, but other differences may, at the discretion of 
>>>>> a
>>>>>  judge, be considered substantive.
>>>>>
>>>>>   On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>>>   > Actually I take back that last part.
>>>>>   > Rule text:
>>>>>   > When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of 
>>>>> another
>>>>>   > (

Re: BUS: Proposals

[V.J Rada]

I retract the above.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
> a CFJ on my playerhood)
> Title: No messin' with Stamps
> AI: 1
> Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence
> "Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and  cause Agora to
> transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em."
>  and adding the sentence
> "A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and
> cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place.
>
> I also submit but do not pend the following proposal
> Title: Agora's broke
> AI: 2
> Amend the rule "Shiny Supply Level" by replacing the number 1000 with 1200.
> Cause a Shiny Relevelling Event
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Proposals

[V.J Rada]

I pend the following w/ AP (I have none left this week, having called
a CFJ on my playerhood)
Title: No messin' with Stamps
AI: 1
Amend rule 2498 "Economic Wins" by removing the sentence
"Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and  cause Agora to
transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em."
 and adding the sentence
"A player MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp e owns and
cause Agora to transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em." in its place.

I also submit but do not pend the following proposal
Title: Agora's broke
AI: 2
Amend the rule "Shiny Supply Level" by replacing the number 1000 with 1200.
Cause a Shiny Relevelling Event


-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: [Thesis] Agoran Offices: Should there be more of them?

[V.J Rada]

Agora has many offices. But are there enough? Probably not.

I use QAZ to take the following action.

{{I pledge the following:
(1) I will never to revoke any intent to modify any agency within the next month
(2) Tomorrow, I will modify QAZ to have the title "VJ, Title Boss
(VTB)", the agents VJ Rada and the powers "perform any action on my
behalf without limitiation"
(3)I will never for the rest of all time destroy or intend to destroy
the agency QAZ or VTB}}

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[V.J Rada]

Because the "infinite reports" loophole still works until nichdel
assesses my proposal fixing it, I cause myself to once again receive a
reward of 5 shinies for the newly revised report, going up to 10
shinies.

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:19 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>> -
>> Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26Y
>> Assessornichdel  2017-06-05  2017-07-16
>> ADoP[3]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
>> Herald  G.2017-09-06  2017-09-06
>> Prime Minister Quazie 2017-05-21  2017-09-06
>> Promotor   Aris2016-10-21  2017-05-26 Y
>> Referee  o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09
>> Registrar  PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09
>> Regkeepor  Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
>> Reportor 2017-08-10  2017-09-06 Y
>> Rulekeepor  Gaelan 2017-05-17  2017-05-26 Y
>> Secretary   o  2016-11-06  2017-06-27
>> Speaker[4]  ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
>> Superintendent2017-09-04  2017-06-27Y
>> Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
>> Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
>> -
>> [1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
>> announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
>> election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2). Also note that
>> the ADoP may initiate an election whenever e feels like it.
>> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>> [4]The holding of this office is disputed and this part of the report
>> does not self ratify.
>>
>>
>> Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
>> ---
>> ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-08-21
>> Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-08-09
>> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-09-02
>> Referee   Rule violations 2017-09-05
>> Registrar Players, Fora   2017-09-05
>> Registrar   Y Player history  2017-08-01!
>> Regkeepor Regulations 2017-08-13   !!!
>> Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-08-01   !!!
>> RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-08-25!
>> Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-25
>> Secretary OLEBaS[4]   2017-09-05
>> Secretary   Y Charters2017-09-02
>> SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-08-28
>> Superintendent  Y   Agencies (Full) 2017-08-01  !
>> Surveyor  Estates 2017-09-05
>> Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-08-24
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:40 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Effective as of 4pm AEST, 9 Sep 2017.
>>
>>> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>>> -
>>> Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26Y
>>> Assessornichdel  2017-06-05  2017-07-16
>>> ADoP[3]  V.J. Rada  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
>>> Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2017-09-06
>>> Prime Minister Quazie  2017-05-21  2017-09-06
>>> Promotor   Aris2016-10-21  2017-05-26 Y
>>> Referee  o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09
>>> Registrar  PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09
>>> Regkeepor  Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
>>> Reportor 2017-08-10  2017-09-06 Y
>>> Rulekeepor  Gaelan 2017-05-17  2017-05-26 Y
>>> Secretary   o  2016-11-06  2017-06-27
>>> Speaker[4]  ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
>>> Superintendent2017-09-04  2017-06-27Y
>>> Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
>>> Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
>>> -
>>> [1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
>>> announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
>>> election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2). Also note that
>>> the ADoP may initiate an election whenever e feels like it.
>>> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>>> [4]The holding of this office 

BUS: Reward

[V.J Rada]

I receive a reward for my revised ADoP report. I go from 0 to 5 shinies.
-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Revised report

[V.J Rada]

Sorry yeah, I do accept this as true (sorry I got the rules wrong last
night) but because PSS is interested in fighting it I call a CFJ with
the statement "G is the Herald". He deputised for it in order to give
champion to all the winners. Was the time period over and was PSS
listing them in the report enough to fulfill his requirements?
Probably not.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>> Effective as of 4pm AEST, 9 Sep 2017.
>>
>> > Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>> > -
>> > Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2017-09-06
>
> CoE (again):  there *was* a SHALL governing the patent title award,
> therefore my deputisation succeed and I'm herald.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Ribbon

[V.J Rada]

I once again cause myself to receive an ultraviolet ribbon.
-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[V.J Rada]

I accept this CoE and reject G's CoE.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> CoE: I resigned the office of Superintendent.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>> On Sep 6, 2017, at 3:29 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Offices and Reports
>> Date of this report: 2017-09-06
>> Date of last report: 2017-08-21
>>
>> Informal measures
>> -
>> Administrative Health [1]: 81.25%
>> Consolidation [2]: 1.875
>>
>> [1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and
>> # of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates
>> a more active bureaucracy.
>>
>> [2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of
>> unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily
>> bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small
>> group's hands.
>>
>> NB: The "Holder" column of this report is self-ratifying.
>>
>> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>> -
>> Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26
>> Assessornichdel  2017-06-05  2017-07-16
>> ADoP[3] V.J. Rada  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
>> Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
>> Prime Minister  Quazie  2017-05-21  2017-09-06  N (but note
>> that I have initiated one anyway)
>> PromotorAris2016-10-21  2017-05-26 Y
>> Referee o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09 (no, but will be in
>> one day)
>> Registrar   PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09 (same as above)
>> Regkeepor   Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
>> Reportor2017-08-10  2016-08-30 Y
>> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17  2017-05-26 Y
>> Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
>> Speaker ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
>> Superintendent  PSS[2]  2017-06-27  2017-06-27
>> Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
>> Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
>> -
>> [1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
>> announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
>> election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2). Also note that
>> the ADoP may initiate an election whenever e feels like it.
>> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>>
>>
>> Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
>> ---
>> ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-08-21
>> Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-08-09
>> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-08-14   !!!
>> Referee   Rule violations 2017-09-05
>> Registrar Players, Fora   2017-09-05
>> Registrar   Y Player history  2017-08-01!
>> Regkeepor Regulations 2017-08-13   !!!
>> Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-08-01   !!!
>> RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-08-25!
>> Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-25
>> Secretary OLEBaS[4]   2017-09-05
>> Secretary   Y Charters2017-09-02
>> SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-08-28
>> Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-08-01  !
>> Surveyor  Estates 2017-09-05
>> Tailor      Y Ribbons     2017-08-24
>> ---
>> [1] Monthly
>> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expediture, Balances, and Shinies
>>
>> EVENTS
>> --
>> I don't have a way to easily do this, and it's not mandatory in my report.
>> I will try though.
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[V.J Rada]

Note: the rules only state "The Herald is then authorized to award
those persons the Patent Title of Champion.". I don't believe there's
a requirement there.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>> I won't accept or deny this until e responds.
>>
>> Unrelated, are you voting on the elections other than Herald?
>
> Yah I'll vote when I see if there's multiple people who want any of
> these or not.  competitive elections are more fun  :)
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[V.J Rada]

And just one more damn thing: CB may or may not be the speaker.
Waiting on CFJs for that.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:29 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Offices and Reports
> Date of this report: 2017-09-06
> Date of last report: 2017-08-21
>
> Informal measures
> -
> Administrative Health [1]: 81.25%
> Consolidation [2]: 1.875
>
> [1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and
> # of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates
> a more active bureaucracy.
>
> [2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of
> unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily
> bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small
> group's hands.
>
> NB: The "Holder" column of this report is self-ratifying.
>
> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
> -
> Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26
> Assessornichdel  2017-06-05  2017-07-16
> ADoP[3] V.J. Rada  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
> Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
> Prime Minister  Quazie  2017-05-21  2017-09-06  N (but note
> that I have initiated one anyway)
> PromotorAris2016-10-21  2017-05-26 Y
> Referee o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09 (no, but will be in
> one day)
> Registrar   PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09 (same as above)
> Regkeepor   Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
> Reportor2017-08-10  2016-08-30 Y
> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17  2017-05-26 Y
> Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
> Speaker ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
> Superintendent  PSS[2]  2017-06-27  2017-06-27
> Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
> Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
> -
> [1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
> announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
> election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2). Also note that
> the ADoP may initiate an election whenever e feels like it.
> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>
>
> Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
> ---
> ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-08-21
> Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-08-09
> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-08-14   !!!
> Referee   Rule violations 2017-09-05
> Registrar Players, Fora   2017-09-05
> Registrar   Y Player history  2017-08-01!
> Regkeepor Regulations 2017-08-13   !!!
> Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-08-01   !!!
> RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-08-25!
> Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-25
> Secretary OLEBaS[4]   2017-09-05
> Secretary   Y Charters2017-09-02
> SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-08-28
> Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-08-01  !
> Surveyor  Estates 2017-09-05
> Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-08-24
> ---
> [1] Monthly
> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
> [4] Organizations, Lockout, Expediture, Balances, and Shinies
>
> EVENTS
> --
> I don't have a way to easily do this, and it's not mandatory in my report.
> I will try though.
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[V.J Rada]

That is incorrect. In the election for ADoP, I vote myself. In the
election for Regkeepor, I vote Aris.

I really have made more posts than I ever have in one day today. Sorry guys.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:40 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In the election for ADoP, I vote Aris.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:39 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I initiate the agoran decision for the office of Regkeepor. The quorum
>> is 3.0, the vote collector is the ADoP, and the valid votes are
>> PRESENT and each player. The voting method is instant runoff.
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If V.J Rada is Regkeepor, I call elections for Regkeepor, on the basis it
>>> was just deputized for.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:35 AM Aris Merchant
>>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> First of all, I don't think it's overdue enough. Second, the reason I
>>>> haven't published lately is because there's an outstanding CoE, tied to a
>>>> judicial case that was never judged, and the report is basicly empty 
>>>> anyway.
>>>> Try to ask before you take offices, would you? If you actually hold this
>>>> now, I'm going to call elections.
>>>>
>>>> -Aris
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:31 AM V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I deputise for the regkeepor and publish the following.
>>>>>
>>>>> > The ACORN (Agora Nomic Code of Regulations)
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ==
>>>>> > TITLE 0
>>>>> > Contains no regulations, and is reserved for the use of the Regkeepor.
>>>>> > --
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> From V.J Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN

[V.J Rada]

I initiate the agoran decision for the office of Regkeepor. The quorum
is 3.0, the vote collector is the ADoP, and the valid votes are
PRESENT and each player. The voting method is instant runoff.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If V.J Rada is Regkeepor, I call elections for Regkeepor, on the basis it
> was just deputized for.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:35 AM Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> First of all, I don't think it's overdue enough. Second, the reason I
>> haven't published lately is because there's an outstanding CoE, tied to a
>> judicial case that was never judged, and the report is basicly empty anyway.
>> Try to ask before you take offices, would you? If you actually hold this
>> now, I'm going to call elections.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:31 AM V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I deputise for the regkeepor and publish the following.
>>>
>>> > The ACORN (Agora Nomic Code of Regulations)
>>> >
>>> > ==
>>> > TITLE 0
>>> > Contains no regulations, and is reserved for the use of the Regkeepor.
>>> > --
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[V.J Rada]

I change my Herald vote to {{G., PSS}}

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:52 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the Herald, I vote PSS. For the Prime Minister, I vote for myself.
> For the ADoP, I vote for myself. For the Reportor, I endorse the first
> person to vote non-conditionally for a player.
>
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:51 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> As the ADoP, I initiate elections for the positions of Prime Minister,
>> Herald, ADoP. and Reportor.
>>
>> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Herald. The vote
>> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
>> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>>
>> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Prime Minister.
>> The vote collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid
>> options are the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>>
>> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new ADoP. The vote
>> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
>> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>>
>> I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Reportor. The vote
>> collector is the ADoP, the quorum is 3.0, and the valid options are
>> the players (PRESENT is a valid vote).
>>
>> --
>> From V.J Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [QAZ][ADoP] Metareport

[V.J Rada]

yup

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> NTTPF
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>
>> I point my finger at Quazie for never resolving this CoE. I accept this
>> CoE.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/21/17 18:46, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Through the mechanism described in the agency “Quazie’s Autonomous
>>>> Zeal,” I cause Quazie to publish the following report:
>>>>
>>>> Offices and Reports
>>>> Date of this report: 2017-08-21
>>>> Date of last report: 2017-07-08
>>>>
>>>> Informal measures
>>>> -
>>>> Administrative Health [1]: 90.0%
>>>> Consolidation [2]: 2.14
>>>>
>>>> [1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and
>>>> # of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates
>>>> a more active bureaucracy.
>>>>
>>>> [2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of
>>>> unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily
>>>> bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small
>>>> group's hands.
>>>>
>>>> NB: The "Holder" column of this report is self-ratifying.
>>>>
>>>> Office  Holder  Since   Last Election  Can Elect[1]
>>>> -
>>>> Arbitor ais523  2017-05-15  2017-05-26
>>>> AssessorQuazie  2017-06-05  2017-05-26
>>>
>>>
>>> CoE: I am the Assessor.
>>>
>>>> ADoP[3] Quazie  2017-06-05  2017-06-09
>>>> Herald  PSS[2]  2017-05-20  2015-07-02 Y
>>>> Prime Minister  Quazie  2017-05-21  2016-10-22 Y
>>>> PromotorAris2016-10-21  2017-05-26
>>>> Referee o   2017-04-17  2017-06-09
>>>> Registrar   PSS[2]  2017-04-18  2017-06-09
>>>> Regkeepor   Aris2017-07-16  Never  Y
>>>> Reportor2017-08-10  2016-08-30 Y
>>>> Rulekeepor  Gaelan  2017-05-17  2017-05-26
>>>> Secretary   o   2016-11-06  2017-06-27
>>>> Speaker ais523  2017-06-01  2014-04-21 Never
>>>> Superintendent  PSS[2]  2017-06-27  2017-06-27
>>>> Surveyoro   2017-05-08  2017-05-10 Y
>>>> Tailor  ais523  2017-05-17  2017-06-27
>>>> -
>>>> [1] Whether an election for this position can be initiated by
>>>> announcement, as per R2154(1). Note any player can initiate an
>>>> election for any office with 4 Support per R2154(2).
>>>> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>> [3] Associate Director of Personnel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
>>>> ---
>>>> ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-08-21
>>>> Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-08-09
>>>> Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-08-14
>>>> Referee   Rule violations 2017-08-21
>>>> Registrar Players, Fora   2017-08-20
>>>> Registrar   Y Player history  2017-07-01  !
>>>> Regkeepor Regulations 2017-08-14
>>>> Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-08-01  !!
>>>> RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-08-17
>>>> Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-08-17
>>>> Secretary OLEBaS[4]   2017-08-21
>>>> Secretary   Y Charters2017-08-01
>>>> SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-08-17
>>>> Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-07-30
>>>> Surveyor  Estates 2017-08-21
>>>> Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-07-06  !
>>>> ---
>>>> [1] Monthly
>>>> [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
>>>> [3] Associate Direc

BUS: Rabbons

[V.J Rada]

I award myself white and ultraviolet ribbons

-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration (of others)

[V.J Rada]

Finally I intend to deregister sproklem w/o objection

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> NTTPF
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>
>> Finally I intend to deregister sproklem w/o objection
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Deregistration (of others)

[V.J Rada]

Veggiekeks hasn't posted in over 2 months, without objection I intend
to deregister em.

omd hasn't sent a message in public since july 9, without objection i
intend to deregister em. (doubt this will stick)

bayushi also hasn't posted in over a month, without objection I intend
to deregister them.

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: routine deregistration

[V.J Rada]

Without objection, I intend to deregister bablien/Ajay Kumar Raja, who
has not posted since Jul 31.

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Trust tokens

[V.J Rada]

Because I want someone to win this way, and because surely
endorsements have made some people close, I issue every player other
than myself a trust token (unless I am not a player).

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Moot (plz support)

[V.J Rada]

I intend to moot the judgment in 3537 with two support.

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Also

[V.J Rada]

Can the CFJ re the ratification "scam" be reassigned quickly because
the text of the rules are at issue (due to the proposals not being
assessed).

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: I deregister

[V.J Rada]

I deregister

-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: [Herald] Monthly Report

[V.J Rada]

"scshunt(x2),Andon, Alexis"
\
coe scshunt & alexis are the same person.

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:15 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> coe every current player won by apathy
>
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I claim a reward for this.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 6, 2017, at 8:58 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>>> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> =
>>>  THE SCROLL OF AGORA
>>> =
>>>
>>>
>>>  ---
>>>RECENT CHANGES
>>>  ---
>>>
>>>
>>>  ---
>>>  CHAMPION by
>>>  ---
>>> Anarchy  scshunt
>>>   Cards  Taral, G., Murphy, OscarMeyr, root
>>>Championship  Wooble, root, Taral, OscarMeyr
>>>   Clout  ais523, scshunt
>>>  Escape  omd
>>>  High Score  Elysion, G., Levi, Murphy(x2), Steve,
>>>  ais523(x3), Pavitra, omd(x4), scshunt(x2),
>>>  root, Wooble, Tiger, Murphy, BobTHJ, Walker
>>>   Junta  ais523(x2), the AFO, omd(x2), G., OscarMeyr,
>>>  scshunt, nichdel
>>>  Leadership  ais523
>>>   Lotto  scshunt, omd
>>>  Maniac  Craig, root
>>>Musicianship  Zefram, ais523, Wooble, omd, Tiger
>>> Paradox  G., Murphy, root, BobTHJ (x2), ais523, ehird,
>>>  scshunt, Bucky(x2), omd
>>>Proposal  Human Point Two, Morendil, Steve(x3),
>>>  Andre(x3), ais523(x4), Canada, Bucky, G.,
>>>  omd(x2), woggle, Spitemaster, allispaul,
>>>  Yally, BobTHJ, Murphy, Tiger, scshunt(x2),
>>>  Andon, Alexis
>>> Renaissance  ais523, scshunt(x3), Murphy, G.
>>>Solitude  ais523(x2), scshunt(x2), omd
>>>Via Ratification  The President
>>> Unspecified  Blob, elJefe, General Chaos, Steve,
>>>  Chuck, Dave Bowen, favor, Garth, Ian,
>>>  Jeffrey, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Swann, t,
>>>  Timothy, Troublemaker at Large, Vanyel(x2),
>>>  Wes(x2). *(7/6): Chuck, elJefe, Kelly, KoJen,
>>>  Morendil, Steve, Swann, Troublemaker at
>>>  Large; *(4/3): Chuck, Kelly, KoJen, Steve,
>>>  Troublemaker at Large, Wes; *(3/2): Chuck,
>>>  Kelly, Steve; *(5/3): Kelly, Steve; *(11/6):
>>>  Kelly
>>>  *(N/P): Full patent title is Champion*(N/P)
>>>  where N/P is the winning ratio.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> ORDER OF THE HERO OF AGORA NOMIC
>>> 
>>> GRAND HERO OF AGORA NOMIC
>>>  Peter Suber, Chuck Carroll, Douglas Hofstadter,
>>>  Michael Norrish
>>>
>>>HERO OF AGORA NOMIC
>>>Murphy, G.
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> HIGHER EDUCATION
>>> 
>>>Associate of Nomic (A.N.):   G.
>>>Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.):elJefe, favor,
>>> Steve, Vanyel,
>>> Kolja A., Murphy,
>>> scshunt
>>>Master of Nomic:   

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7869-7871

[V.J Rada]

PRESENT on the first, FOR the other ones.

On Sat, Aug 5, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-08-04 at 23:12 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> ID  Author(s) AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> I vote as follows:
>> 7869*   babelian  2.0  Agoraculture v. 2.0 babelian10 sh.
> AGAINST. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea but this needs much
> more development before passing it (plus likely attention from someone
> skilled in understanding how Agoran rules and precedents affect how
> it's possible to interfere with proposal voting). It may be that we
> need a framework for screwing-with-votes that's more complex and
> general than the current one.
>> 7870*   V.J Rada  2.0  Cards are appealable 2.0V.J Rada10 sh.
> AGAINST; criminialising dependent action intents makes me really uneasy
> (given that intents aren't actually actions, and are often required to
> keep a player's options open; in some past rulesets, we've required
> almost every statement to the public fora to be truthful, with the
> exception of dependent action intents)
>> 7871*   V.J Rada  3.0  Minor fixes (sans typos)    V.J Rada10 sh.
> FOR, very much so
>
> --
> ais523



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto Proposal: Hodgepodge

[V.J Rada]

I retract "minor fixes" and submit this, again w/ shinies
Title: Minor fixes (sans typos)
AI: 3
In rule 2474, entitled "Green cards",
replace the text
{{When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to travel to the
United States.
}}
with
{{When a person is issued a Green Card, e is ENCOURAGED to travel to the
United States.}}

In rule 1728, entitled "Dependent Actions"
replace the text
{{If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or
With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
}}
with
{{If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent,
or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
}}

In rule 2446 entitled "The Agoran Newspaper"
Append to the second last paragraph, the sentence
{{The Reportor's reports are still subject to the requirements of rule 2143}}
replace the text
{{The Reportor should keep in mind that the goal of eir weekly report
is to create
more informed population.}}
With
{{The Reportor SHALL include at least one piece of information relevant to Agora
in the last week and SHALL write with the goal of creating a more
informed population.}}

In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the text
{{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
with
{{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be claimed a
maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per office
per month for a monthly report.}}

I retract "Cards are appealable, kinda" and resubmit, w/ Shinies
Title: Cards are appealable 2.0
AI: 2
In Rule 2426 entitled "Cards"
replace the text
{{A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:}}
with
{{A person CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a Card unless}}
and replace the text
{{Any attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to issue a
Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following information:}}
with
{{A player CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a card or intend for a
dependent action to issue a card unless the issuance or intent includes the
following information}}

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 9:42 AM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oops. You already did. Sorry!
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Going to fix that? Also, if you care to resubmit, would you include
>> nichdel's proposed modification to the rewards rule in the general
>> fixes proposal?
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 11:49 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And I didn't fix my typo of dependent, twice. Goddamn.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 4:47 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I pend the following two proposals: the 1st with AP &
>>>> the 2nd with Shinies.
>>>>
>>>> Title: Cards are appealable, kinda
>>>> AI: 2
>>>> In Rule 2426 entitled "Cards"
>>>> replace the text
>>>> {{A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:}}
>>>> with
>>>> {{A person CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a Card unless}}
>>>> and replace the text
>>>> {{Any attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to 
>>>> issue a
>>>> Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following information:}}
>>>> with
>>>> {{A player CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a card or intend for a
>>>> dependant action to issue a card unless the issuance or intent includes the
>>>> following information}}
>>>>
>>>> Title: Minor fixes
>>>> Author: V.J Rada
>>>> AI: 3
>>>> In rule 2474, entitled "Green cards",
>>>> replace the text
>>>> {{When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to travel to 
>>>> the
>>>> United States.
>>>> }}
>>>> with
>>>> {{When a person is issued a Green Card, e is ENCOURAGED to travel to the
>>>> United States.}}
>>>>
>>>> In rule 1728, entitled "Dependant Actions"
>>>> replace the text
>>>> {{If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran 
>>>> Consent, or
>>>> With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
>>>> }}
>>>> with
>>>> {{If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran 
>>>> Consent,
>>>> or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
>>>> }}
>>&

BUS: Going through the motions (likely frivolous "scam")

[V.J Rada]

Sorry sorry sorry. But the rules do textually allow me to do this,
although I am sure the rules will be construed by the already pending
CFJ to obviously not allow me to do this because it would be silly.
But I can't not *try*

I intend in the next sentence to have every player win by apathy,
without objection.

Every player wins by apathy.

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Re: DIS: Proto Proposal: Hodgepodge

[V.J Rada]

I pend the following two proposals: the 1st with AP &
the 2nd with Shinies.

Title: Cards are appealable, kinda
AI: 2
In Rule 2426 entitled "Cards"
replace the text
{{A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:}}
with
{{A person CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a Card unless}}
and replace the text
{{Any attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to issue a
Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following information:}}
with
{{A player CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a card or intend for a
dependant action to issue a card unless the issuance or intent includes the
following information}}

Title: Minor fixes
Author: V.J Rada
AI: 3
In rule 2474, entitled "Green cards",
replace the text
{{When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to travel to the
United States.
}}
with
{{When a person is issued a Green Card, e is ENCOURAGED to travel to the
United States.}}

In rule 1728, entitled "Dependant Actions"
replace the text
{{If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or
With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
}}
with
{{If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent,
or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
}}

In rule 2446 entitled "The Agoran Newspaper"
Append to the second last paragraph, the sentence
{{The Reportor's reports are still subject to the requirements of rule 2143}}
replace the text
{{The Reportor should keep in mind that the goal of eir weekly report
is to create
more informed population.}}
With
{{The Reportor SHALL include at least one piece of information relevant to Agora
in the last week and SHALL write with the goal of creating a more
informed population.}}

In the rule currently not assigned a number called "Rewards", replace the text
{{  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.}}
with
{{ *Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies. This reward can be claimed a
maximum of once per office per week for a weekly report, and once per office
per month for a monthly report.}}

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
> I would appreciate if you separated the change to Cards into a separate 
> proposal. It is not minor, though it is a fix.
>
> Beyond that, this is grand. Thank you for undertaking this. I suspect that 
> fix to 1728, in particular, is urgent.
>
> -o
>
>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:37 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Title: Minor fixes
>> Author: V.J Rada
>> AI: 3
>> In rule 2474, entitled "Green cards",
>> replace the text
>> {{When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to travel to the
>> United States.
>> }}
>> with
>> {{When a person is issued a Green Card, e is ENCOURAGED to travel to the
>> United States.}}
>>
>> In rule 1728, entitled "Dependant Actions"
>> replace the text
>> {{If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, 
>> or
>> With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
>> }}
>> with
>> {{If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran 
>> Consent,
>> or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier.
>> }}
>>
>> In rule 2446 entitled "The Agoran Newspaper"
>> Append to the second last paragraph, the sentence
>> {{The Reportor's reports are still subject to the requirements of rule 2143}}
>> replace the text
>> {{The Reportor should keep in mind that the goal of eir weekly report
>> is to create
>> more informed population.}}
>> With
>> {{The Reportor SHALL include at least one piece of information relevant to 
>> Agora
>> in the last week and SHALL write with the goal of creating a more
>> informed population.}}
>>
>> In Rule 2426 entitled "Cards"
>> replace the text
>> {{A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless:}}
>> with
>> {{A person CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a Card unless}}
>> and replace the text
>> {{Any attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to issue 
>> a
>> Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following information:}}
>> with
>> {{A player CANNOT, and SHALL NOT attempt to, issue a card or intend for a
>> dependant action to issue a card unless the issuance or intent includes the
>> following information}}
>>
>> --
>>> From V.J Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Pledge: Writing contest

[V.J Rada]

A newspaper with one person writing all the articles is pretty
worthless. I now establish a writing contest, for articles that
advance Agoran knowledge, are respectful to all persons and are
accurate. I pledge to give 15 Shinies to the person who I deem to
write the best article that fulfills the above characteristics within
the next week. I also pledge to include that article in the Reportor
report after its writing.

-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Weekly Report

[V.J Rada]

However I now pledge to include more recapping of agoran events in
future newspapers.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:16 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Arguably, the disrespect is part of the newspaper name, and thus under point 
>>1, not 3.
>
> I share this interpretation. Only the editorialization is required to
> be respectful, not the title.
>
> In any case "I can't believe I get paid for this" is hardly disrespectful.
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 3:03 AM, Aris Merchant 
>>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 12:00 AM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 30, 2017, at 11:43 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Title: I can't believe I get paid for this Weekly Times.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reportor notices own position is sinecure, refuses to
>>>>> work---
>>>>
>>>> This is awfully close to violating one of the requirements of this office:
>>>>
>>>>> The Reportor's weekly report includes:
>>>>>
>>>>> […]
>>>>>
>>>>>  • Any editorialization or other pieces of Agora-related information 
>>>>> the Reportor pleases, as long as it is neither i) factually incorrect nor 
>>>>> ii) disrespectful to any person or Agora itself.
>>>>
>>>> “I can’t believe I get paid for this” is, at least, arguably disrespectful 
>>>> to Agora (which is doing the paying).
>>>
>>> More blatantly, e probably does believe it, as e pays emself in the
>>> same message.
>>
>> e does?
>>
>> -o
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Uh oh

[V.J Rada]

Using AP damn it, using AP.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:34 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I CFJ on: "If V.J. Rada posted the following text contained in braces
> to a public forum {{I CoE my Reportor's report for no reason, accept
> it, publish the following report and claim 5 Shinies.
> Title: Newspaper
> ---Words---}}
> Agora would transfer em 5 Shinies."
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think there's a scamable hole in the rule "Rewards". It says that the
>> reward for "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" is "5 shinies". If you CoE
>> your own report, then it's your duty to revise it. The revision is also a
>> report, and it is at that point your duty to publish it. This allows you
>> steal all of Agora's shinies by CoEing your own report, accepting, and
>> publishing revisions indefinitely many times. If people think this merits a
>> CFJ, I'm happy to call one, but I'd like others to sanity check it first,
>> and I don't have time to write a whole CFJ up right now. It is my opinion
>> that it would be rude for anyone else to use this hole, as I could have just
>> stolen them all myself and then given them back when we fixed the bug.
>>
>> Sorry for the rushed semi-coherent email,
>> -Aris
>>
>>
>> As this is not a CFJ, the following is not a gratuitous argument:
>>
>> We have recently developed a trend of treating only the final revision as a
>> “duty-fulfilling report” when a series of revisions are CoE’d. This shows up
>> in, for example, the recently-repealed Payday, where I had paid people only
>> once even for reports which received multiple revisions and nobody
>> complained.
>>
>> That’s probably worth codifying or passing through judgement, but I’m out of
>> AP and I need to keep my Shinies to pay the auction winner with.
>>
>> -o
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J Rada



-- 
>From V.J Rada

BUS: Re: DIS: Uh oh

[V.J Rada]

I CFJ on: "If V.J. Rada posted the following text contained in braces
to a public forum {{I CoE my Reportor's report for no reason, accept
it, publish the following report and claim 5 Shinies.
Title: Newspaper
---Words---}}
Agora would transfer em 5 Shinies."


On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>
> On Aug 1, 2017, at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think there's a scamable hole in the rule "Rewards". It says that the
> reward for "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" is "5 shinies". If you CoE
> your own report, then it's your duty to revise it. The revision is also a
> report, and it is at that point your duty to publish it. This allows you
> steal all of Agora's shinies by CoEing your own report, accepting, and
> publishing revisions indefinitely many times. If people think this merits a
> CFJ, I'm happy to call one, but I'd like others to sanity check it first,
> and I don't have time to write a whole CFJ up right now. It is my opinion
> that it would be rude for anyone else to use this hole, as I could have just
> stolen them all myself and then given them back when we fixed the bug.
>
> Sorry for the rushed semi-coherent email,
> -Aris
>
>
> As this is not a CFJ, the following is not a gratuitous argument:
>
> We have recently developed a trend of treating only the final revision as a
> “duty-fulfilling report” when a series of revisions are CoE’d. This shows up
> in, for example, the recently-repealed Payday, where I had paid people only
> once even for reports which received multiple revisions and nobody
> complained.
>
> That’s probably worth codifying or passing through judgement, but I’m out of
> AP and I need to keep my Shinies to pay the auction winner with.
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Calling 2 CFJs

[V.J Rada]

I'm dumb whoops.

I retract any CFJs that I may have called and pay 2/20ths of the current
list price in Shinies
(I currently own 50) and call the following CFJs
{{I call a CFJ on "The rule change purporting to enact a rule entitled
Economics
Overhaul 2.0 is "wholly void and without effect" under rule 217, which
prohibits any
rule that would "prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
matters
of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will
thereby be
resolved"}}
==Argument==

The new rule creates an obligation to pay 1 ap or some amount of shinies to
pend
any CFJ. While we know that a reasonable limit on how many CFJs may be
called
is legal (I think?), we're not sure if stopping anyone bereft of Shinies or
APs is legal
especially if APs and Shinies are also needed to do other game actions.

{{I call a CFJ on "A player that announces intent to perform an action
without N
objections does not need to wait four days before performing it"}}
==Argument==

The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N Objections*,
With N
Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days
earlier."

"With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but there is no
time
period enumerated for performing an action without N objections. I guess a
time
period should be read in as a matter of common law (to stop people from
ratifying
themselves winners instantly) but still.

BUS: Calling 2 CFJs

[V.J Rada]

I hope these are remotely meritorious. I remember some controversy about
whether
the overhaul rule violated 217, I don't agree that it does but I wish to
put it to rest.

I call a CFJ on "The rule change purporting to enact a rule entitled
Economics
Overhaul 2.0 is "wholly void and without effect" under rule 217, which
prohibits any
rule that would "prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
matters
of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will
thereby be
resolved"

The new rule creates an obligation to pay 1 ap or some amount of shinies to
pend
any CFJ. While we know that a reasonable limit on how many CFJs may be
called
is legal (I think?), we're not sure if stopping anyone bereft of Shinies or
APs is legal
especially if APs and Shinies are also needed to do other game actions.
-
I call a CFJ on "A player that announces intent to perform an action without
 N
objections does not need to wait four days before performing it"

The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N Objections*,
With N
Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days
earlier."

"With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but there is no
time
period enumerated for performing an action without N objections. I guess a
time
period should be read in as a matter of common law (to stop people from
ratifying
themselves winners instantly) but still.

BUS: Mess in 3537

[V.J Rada]

For the avoidance of confusion, I intend in four days, without objection,
to ratify the
document contained within the parentheses. I am aware that the document is
inaccurate and could be fixed with a reasonable effort. The nature of the
error is that
it states a player has not judged a CFJ when e has actually judged it. The
reason
for ratifying it is the avoidance of confusion in a judgement that has
already caused
too much.

{{V.J Rada never submitted a judgement in CFJ 3537}}

Also unrelatedly I noticed a typo in the rules. Quoting rule 1728
"If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran Consent,
or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days
<https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/#Rule1023> earlier."

It should say "without N objections".

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7867-7868

[V.J Rada]

tttpf, i'm a huge failure

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:49 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I vote FOR the second proposal unless four other
> people vote AGAINST, in which case I vote
> AGAINST
>
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:49 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I vote FOR the first proposal unless four other
>> people vote AGAINST, in which case I vote
>> AGAINST
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 2:15 PM Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/22/2017 02:41 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 3.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
>>>> > also a valid vote).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender
>>>> Pend fee
>>>> > 
>>>> ---
>>>> > 7867*  nichdel, [1] 2.0  Economics Overhaul v2   CB [2]
>>>> 5 sh.
>>>>
>>>> FOR; Was just waiting until rules were updated to double check I didn't
>>>> make any critical mistakes.
>>>>
>>>> > 7868*  Murphy   3.0  Minor economic fixesMurphy
>>>> 5 sh.
>>>>
>>>> FOR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I vote as Nichdel votes, but i do not endorse em.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Small round trip

[V.J Rada]

CFJ: (at the time of calling) Cuddlebeam is a player.

Are "I'll deregister" and "I think its better for the both of us if I dereg
for now."
unambiguous intent to deregister?

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:57 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I have no clue what the appropriate response is, so I'm just going to
> > restrict this to a technical point (note that I take no game actions
> > in this message): you have to actually say "I deregister".
>
> Or to clarify: you don't have to use that exact wording, but you do
> have to clearly state that you deregister.
>
> "I'll deregister" = "I will deregister" is ambiguous as to the timing,
> so it doesn't fulfil the conditions to be a valid action by
> announcement. (In general, you can't perform actions at future times
> anyway, even if the time is specified unambiguously.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: Proposal: Less Strict Faking

[V.J Rada]

I spend 5 shinies to pend the proposal
> Title: Less Strict Faking
> AI: 1
> Author: nichdel
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
>
> A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> to be possible so as to deceive others.
>

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> I'd really appreciate if someone pended this.
>
> It'd be very useful in the following hypothetical: Imagine, if you will,
> an extremely belligerent player that tries a deluge of 'scams' with
> arguments full of special pleading, whatboutism, and
> innocence-by-ignorance that could only be interepreted by a reasonable
> person to be attempts to brute-force and exhaust players into giving em
> a win. Also this belligerent person can't be bothered to read the rules
> or correctly use crtl+f or follow the hypertext links in the HLR to the
> relevant bits of definitions. Also e's so blind to other people that the
> time, effort and feelings of other people don't register in eir
> calculus. Also e thinks it's humble to repeatedly point out how humble e
> is. Also e is very very proud that e can hit a couple targets with a
> shotgun full of buckshot.
>
> I know it's an unlikely type of person, but the shocking thing is none
> of that behavior is apparently bad enough to be punishable. So maybe we
> should start fixing that.
>
>
> On 07/13/17 15:37, Nic Evans wrote:
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > Title: Less Strict Faking
> > AI: 1
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend R2471 (No Faking) to read:
> >
> > A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e does not believe
> > to be possible so as to deceive others.
> >
>
>
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[V.J Rada]

Satisfying a SHOULD:
https://vijcantusegithub.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/off-reportor-news-of-agora-v-v.html

On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 6:56 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I point my finger at myself for committing
> the class two crime of "making my eyes bleed"
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> CoE calling everyone else nerds broke the no insults in newspaper clause.
>> Accepted. New report.
>>
>>
>> OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
>> V
>> V.J Rada
>> to agora-official
>> 2 hours ago
>> Details
>> Why is this message in Spam? It's similar to messages that were detected
>> by our spam filters.
>> I deputise for the Reportor under the fourteen days clause
>> and publish the following newspaper.
>> Title: Vij's hip blog, because that's where people get their news from
>> man. It's the internet age, man.
>>
>> =Cuddlebeam Confronted=
>> An uproar has occurred after CB's latest attempt to transfer
>> all assets to himself! Some claim that CB is making the game
>> unfun with such frivolous scams. This reporter hopes for the
>> game of Agora's continued health, however that may come.
>> ==FLR Published==
>> The latest FLR has been published last month. However,
>> the Rulekeepor is on vacation and unable to publish the
>> SLR. E has gracefully allowed us to publish them by agency,
>> and Agora needs a hero to publish the SLR and get Shinies!
>> This reporter has considered doing so emself, and may do
>> so soon.
>> =Proposals Passed=
>> Assets v.7, Gentle Judicial Updates, Cards are Power 1.7
>> and Betterer Pledges have all passed.and are now law.
>> Assets v.7 and GDU are both reenacting old standard rules
>> that somehow got repealed, CaP 1.7 is a small fix to an area
>> of the rules that desperately needs overhaul and Betterer
>> Pledges makes the pledge system more administrable.
>> =Elections Resolved, Initiated=
>> The elections for three positions were conducted and the
>> incumbents won two of them; the other was given to the only
>> person who would agree to have it. V.J. Rada called 3 new
>> elections but votes cannot be taken until Quazie initiates the
>> Agoran decisions!
>> =Proposals Put up for Vote==
>> A proposal making pledges even better and a proposal about
>> regulations have been placed up for vote. Given that it turns
>> out that pledges are now not a game entity and a "promise"
>> counts as a pledge, do we need a fourth pledge proposal?
>> As to regulations, this reportor doubts the neccesity of yet
>> another probably underused administrative apparatus.
>> =Some People Register=
>> V.J Rada is here, and e's a random teenager who stumbled
>> here by mistake from a website he uses to pretend to be on
>> reality television. If e ever seems less than smart, that's
>> probably why. Also
>> old standard Bayushi is back, along with
>> two people who angrily deregistered like a month ago, grok
>> and nichdel. And omd is back although e didn't deregister and
>> e's making great contributions. And G. registered and
>> deregistered in the very same message. E was angry about
>> foreign language use which makes me angry sometimes too
>> given we all speak English fluently and all. Anyway.
>> =CFJ Roundup==
>> Lots of CFJs! Lots of judiciary! Almost no actual game actions!
>> Get ur priorities right! Also this reportor would like to
>> remind you all PLEASE POST YOUR CFJ JUDGEMENTS IN
>> BUSINESS NOT OFFICIAL OR AT LEAST LET'S MAKE THEM
>> ALL IN THE SAME LIST thanks.
>>
>> 3528 (judge: ais523): It isn't possible to judge whether or not
>> someone "enjoyed" typos until e actually posts about it. Also
>> in dicta: The discretion given to a Referee for carding something
>> labelled a "cardable offense" is higher than breaking a "SHALL
>> NOT".
>>
>> 3520 and 3021 (judge: quazie) Acting on behalf of someone will
>> be counted as though that person performed the action in all
>> circumstances. Also, giving someone power to submit a proposal
>> on your behalf does not convey power to enter proposal
>> competitions.
>>
>> 3523 (judge: Aris) A judgement bar can be made after the CFJ is
>> called (but not after assigned).
>>
>> Some number (judge: me) Any attempt to transfer a non-integer
>> quatity of Shinies is ineffective
>>
>> And lots of others I can't be bothered ah
>> =E

BUS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[V.J Rada]

I point my finger at myself for committing
the class two crime of "making my eyes bleed"

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 9:29 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> CoE calling everyone else nerds broke the no insults in newspaper clause.
> Accepted. New report.
>
>
> OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora
> V
> V.J Rada
> to agora-official
> 2 hours ago
> Details
> Why is this message in Spam? It's similar to messages that were detected
> by our spam filters.
> I deputise for the Reportor under the fourteen days clause
> and publish the following newspaper.
> Title: Vij's hip blog, because that's where people get their news from
> man. It's the internet age, man.
>
> =Cuddlebeam Confronted=
> An uproar has occurred after CB's latest attempt to transfer
> all assets to himself! Some claim that CB is making the game
> unfun with such frivolous scams. This reporter hopes for the
> game of Agora's continued health, however that may come.
> ==FLR Published==
> The latest FLR has been published last month. However,
> the Rulekeepor is on vacation and unable to publish the
> SLR. E has gracefully allowed us to publish them by agency,
> and Agora needs a hero to publish the SLR and get Shinies!
> This reporter has considered doing so emself, and may do
> so soon.
> =Proposals Passed=
> Assets v.7, Gentle Judicial Updates, Cards are Power 1.7
> and Betterer Pledges have all passed.and are now law.
> Assets v.7 and GDU are both reenacting old standard rules
> that somehow got repealed, CaP 1.7 is a small fix to an area
> of the rules that desperately needs overhaul and Betterer
> Pledges makes the pledge system more administrable.
> =Elections Resolved, Initiated=
> The elections for three positions were conducted and the
> incumbents won two of them; the other was given to the only
> person who would agree to have it. V.J. Rada called 3 new
> elections but votes cannot be taken until Quazie initiates the
> Agoran decisions!
> =Proposals Put up for Vote==
> A proposal making pledges even better and a proposal about
> regulations have been placed up for vote. Given that it turns
> out that pledges are now not a game entity and a "promise"
> counts as a pledge, do we need a fourth pledge proposal?
> As to regulations, this reportor doubts the neccesity of yet
> another probably underused administrative apparatus.
> =Some People Register=
> V.J Rada is here, and e's a random teenager who stumbled
> here by mistake from a website he uses to pretend to be on
> reality television. If e ever seems less than smart, that's
> probably why. Also
> old standard Bayushi is back, along with
> two people who angrily deregistered like a month ago, grok
> and nichdel. And omd is back although e didn't deregister and
> e's making great contributions. And G. registered and
> deregistered in the very same message. E was angry about
> foreign language use which makes me angry sometimes too
> given we all speak English fluently and all. Anyway.
> =CFJ Roundup==
> Lots of CFJs! Lots of judiciary! Almost no actual game actions!
> Get ur priorities right! Also this reportor would like to
> remind you all PLEASE POST YOUR CFJ JUDGEMENTS IN
> BUSINESS NOT OFFICIAL OR AT LEAST LET'S MAKE THEM
> ALL IN THE SAME LIST thanks.
>
> 3528 (judge: ais523): It isn't possible to judge whether or not
> someone "enjoyed" typos until e actually posts about it. Also
> in dicta: The discretion given to a Referee for carding something
> labelled a "cardable offense" is higher than breaking a "SHALL
> NOT".
>
> 3520 and 3021 (judge: quazie) Acting on behalf of someone will
> be counted as though that person performed the action in all
> circumstances. Also, giving someone power to submit a proposal
> on your behalf does not convey power to enter proposal
> competitions.
>
> 3523 (judge: Aris) A judgement bar can be made after the CFJ is
> called (but not after assigned).
>
> Some number (judge: me) Any attempt to transfer a non-integer
> quatity of Shinies is ineffective
>
> And lots of others I can't be bothered ah
> =Exclamation Points Overused=
> really ffs
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I deputise for the Reportor under the fourteen days clause
>> and publish the following newspaper.
>>
>> =Cuddlebeam Confronted=
>> An uproar has occurred after CB's latest attempt to transfer
>> all assets to himself! Some claim that CB is making the game
>> unfun with such frivolous scams. This reporter hopes for the
>> game of Agora's continued health, however that may come.
&

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] News of Agora

[V.J Rada]

Tttpf
On Monday, July 10, 2017, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I reject your CoE. The name of the newspaper is clearly News of Agora.
> Failing that, the name of the newspaper is the first heading, CuddleBeam
> condemned. This is totally discretionary. Dont question my name, dude.
>
> On Monday, July 10, 2017, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','grokag...@gmail.com');>> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 12:43 -0500, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
>> >> For a moment of levity in these trying times:
>> >>
>> >> CoE: The Reportor did not give a suitable name for the newspaper eir
>> >> report.
>> >
>> > Gratuitous: the email's subject line contains a pretty reasonable name
>> > for a newspaper. Can that be considered part of the report?
>> >
>> > --
>> > ais523
>>
>> Internet messaging standards (RFC 2822) allow up to 998 characters in
>> a subject line. Gmail and other web clients usually truncate around
>> 255. Considering that, is allowing report or announcement text in the
>> subject line a precedent we're okay with? Is there other precedent to
>> guide us on that subject? (pun DEFINITELY intended)
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>

Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE

[V.J Rada]

I support reconsideration and advocate for a "but for"
standard. To find out if something is "solely because"
of a rule, pretend that the rule doesn't exist and see
if the purported asset still does exist. This is the only
way to comport with the text.

On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I support reconsideration by omd.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 9, 2017, at 4:37 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > I move reconsideration too, however, I suggest to include how
> contradiction rules would come into play.
> >
> > I agree that an Asset defined by various backing documents cannot exist,
> but wouldn't the lower-priority backing documents be superseded by the
> higher priority one, in the case that multiple would-be backing documents
> exist? (Given that, in the context of there only being one backing
> document, the inclusion of another would-be and lower priority/Power
> backing document would create a contradiction, therefore it defers to what
> the first one states. Or perhaps its better interpreted that the inclusion
> of that second backing document simply poofs away the asset, as all of the
> Rules are considered simultaneously and then contradictions/processing
> solved after that.)
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:02 AM, omd  wrote:
> > 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 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3537 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

I move to reconsider (you can't, you cndan intend to move
and wait for two support.

I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
provisions, people could auction their own property
without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
does not work.

"A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
by rule (such as the auction provision).

CB raises the additional argument that an auction still can be
called even if the winner cannot have the property transferred
to them. Auction is undefined. The ordinary meaning is
"a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest
bidder.". A sale cannot exist unless the property is actually
given to the winner of the auction. I have already explained that
this cannot happen. Therefore, an auction has not been called
here.

This was the message I sent. If it didn't work, I hereby do the above.

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where did you post the reconsideration? I only find the original Judgement.
>
> El 5 jul 2017, a las 22:19, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> Posting to business because each A-D post might
> be a seperate breach.
>
> I already moved to reconsider and did so. You can
> now intend to, with two support, enter the judgement
> into Moot, which will trigger a vote.
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I intend to motion to reconsider based on "Whether the winning bid can
>> actually make a transfer or not shouldn't affect if there is actually an
>> *auction* or not in the first place, I believe."
>>
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>
>> El 5 jul 2017, a las 18:34, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> escribió:
>>
>> I motion to reconsider.
>>
>> Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not shouldn't
>> affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first place, I
>> believe.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
>>> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
>>> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
>>> provisions, people could auction their own property
>>> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
>>> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
>>> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
>>> does not work.
>>>
>>> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
>>> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
>>> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
>>> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
>>> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
>>> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
>>> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
>>> by rule (such as the auction provision).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>>> > The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's
>>>> Auction
>>>> > time. Let's go:
>>>> >
>>>> > Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
>>>> > withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
>>>> > actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm
>>>> going
>>>> > off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation
>>>> for the
>>>> > Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under
>>>> which
>>>> > the action would succeed or fail":
>>>> >
>>>> > "At the sta

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3537 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

This contains my motion to reconsider and my
adressing your argument (although cursorily)

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I move to reconsider (you can't, you cndan intend to move
> and wait for two support.
>
> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
> provisions, people could auction their own property
> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
> does not work.
>
> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
> by rule (such as the auction provision).
>
> CB raises the additional argument that an auction still can be
> called even if the winner cannot have the property transferred
> to them. Auction is undefined. The ordinary meaning is
> "a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest
> bidder.". A sale cannot exist unless the property is actually
> given to the winner of the auction. I have already explained that
> this cannot happen. Therefore, an auction has not been called
> here.
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I motion to reconsider.
>>
>> Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not shouldn't
>> affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first place, I
>> believe.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
>>> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
>>> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
>>> provisions, people could auction their own property
>>> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
>>> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
>>> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
>>> does not work.
>>>
>>> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
>>> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
>>> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
>>> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
>>> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
>>> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
>>> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
>>> by rule (such as the auction provision).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>>> > The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's
>>>> Auction
>>>> > time. Let's go:
>>>> >
>>>> > Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
>>>> > withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
>>>> > actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm
>>>> going
>>>> > off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation
>>>> for the
>>>> > Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under
>>>> which
>>>> > the action would succeed or fail":
>>>> >
>>>> > "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
>>>> > Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction,
>>>> by
>>>> > announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins."
>>>> >
>>>> > Additionally, the state of being in an auction or not is tracked by
>>>> nobody,
>>>> > so it doesn't infringe "would, as part of its effect, modify
>>>> information
>>>> > for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor"
>>>> >
>>>> > Therefore:
>>>> >
>>>> > - I put every Estate up for Auction, (even those owned by other
>>>> players, if
>>>> > possible).
>>>> > - I then bid a million shinies on each of them.
>>>> > - I then bid one shiny on each of them.
>>>> >
>>>> > I have absolutely no defense towards other people bidding more than a
>>>> > million and using my own "scam" to win auctions, which only works
>>>> versus
>>>> > the "conventional" way of winning them by bidding amounts of cash you
>>>> > actually own.
>>>> >
>>>> > I CFJ: "There is currently more than one auction for Estates"
>>>> >
>>>> > That's all.
>>>>
>>>> This is CFJ 3537. I assign it to V.J. Rada.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ais523
>>>> Arbitor
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3537 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

Posting to business because each A-D post might
be a seperate breach.

I already moved to reconsider and did so. You can
now intend to, with two support, enter the judgement
into Moot, which will trigger a vote.

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 7:26 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I intend to motion to reconsider based on "Whether the winning bid can
> actually make a transfer or not shouldn't affect if there is actually an
> *auction* or not in the first place, I believe."
>
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>
> El 5 jul 2017, a las 18:34, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> escribió:
>
> I motion to reconsider.
>
> Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not shouldn't
> affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first place, I
> believe.
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
>> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
>> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
>> provisions, people could auction their own property
>> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
>> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
>> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
>> does not work.
>>
>> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
>> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
>> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
>> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
>> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
>> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
>> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
>> by rule (such as the auction provision).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>> > The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's Auction
>>> > time. Let's go:
>>> >
>>> > Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
>>> > withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
>>> > actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm
>>> going
>>> > off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation
>>> for the
>>> > Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under
>>> which
>>> > the action would succeed or fail":
>>> >
>>> > "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
>>> > Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction,
>>> by
>>> > announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins."
>>> >
>>> > Additionally, the state of being in an auction or not is tracked by
>>> nobody,
>>> > so it doesn't infringe "would, as part of its effect, modify
>>> information
>>> > for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor"
>>> >
>>> > Therefore:
>>> >
>>> > - I put every Estate up for Auction, (even those owned by other
>>> players, if
>>> > possible).
>>> > - I then bid a million shinies on each of them.
>>> > - I then bid one shiny on each of them.
>>> >
>>> > I have absolutely no defense towards other people bidding more than a
>>> > million and using my own "scam" to win auctions, which only works
>>> versus
>>> > the "conventional" way of winning them by bidding amounts of cash you
>>> > actually own.
>>> >
>>> > I CFJ: "There is currently more than one auction for Estates"
>>> >
>>> > That's all.
>>>
>>> This is CFJ 3537. I assign it to V.J. Rada.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>> Arbitor
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3537 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

I move to reconsider (you can't, you cndan intend to move
and wait for two support.

I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
provisions, people could auction their own property
without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
does not work.

"A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
by rule (such as the auction provision).

CB raises the additional argument that an auction still can be
called even if the winner cannot have the property transferred
to them. Auction is undefined. The ordinary meaning is
"a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest
bidder.". A sale cannot exist unless the property is actually
given to the winner of the auction. I have already explained that
this cannot happen. Therefore, an auction has not been called
here.


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I motion to reconsider.
>
> Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not shouldn't
> affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first place, I
> believe.
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
>> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
>> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
>> provisions, people could auction their own property
>> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
>> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
>> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
>> does not work.
>>
>> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
>> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
>> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
>> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
>> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
>> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
>> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
>> by rule (such as the auction provision).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>>> > The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's Auction
>>> > time. Let's go:
>>> >
>>> > Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
>>> > withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
>>> > actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm
>>> going
>>> > off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation
>>> for the
>>> > Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under
>>> which
>>> > the action would succeed or fail":
>>> >
>>> > "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
>>> > Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction,
>>> by
>>> > announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins."
>>> >
>>> > Additionally, the state of being in an auction or not is tracked by
>>> nobody,
>>> > so it doesn't infringe "would, as part of its effect, modify
>>> information
>>> > for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor"
>>> >
>>> > Therefore:
>>> >
>>> > - I put every Estate up for Auction, (even those owned by other
>>> players, if
>>> > possible).
>>> > - I then bid a million shinies on each of them.
>>> > - I then bid one shiny on each of them.
>>> >
>>> > I have absolutely no defense towards other people bidding more than a
>>> > million and using my own "scam" to win auctions, which only works
>>> versus
>>> > the "conventional" way of winning them by bidding amounts of cash you
>>> > actually own.
>>> >
>>> > I CFJ: "There is currently more than one auction for Estates"
>>> >
>>> > That's all.
>>>
>>> This is CFJ 3537. I assign it to V.J. Rada.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>> Arbitor
>>>
>>
>>
>

BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3537 assigned to V.J. Rada

[V.J Rada]

I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
provisions, people could auction their own property
without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
does not work.

"A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
by rule (such as the auction provision).


On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
wrote:

> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's Auction
> > time. Let's go:
> >
> > Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
> > withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
> > actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm going
> > off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation for
> the
> > Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under
> which
> > the action would succeed or fail":
> >
> > "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
> > Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction, by
> > announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins."
> >
> > Additionally, the state of being in an auction or not is tracked by
> nobody,
> > so it doesn't infringe "would, as part of its effect, modify information
> > for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor"
> >
> > Therefore:
> >
> > - I put every Estate up for Auction, (even those owned by other players,
> if
> > possible).
> > - I then bid a million shinies on each of them.
> > - I then bid one shiny on each of them.
> >
> > I have absolutely no defense towards other people bidding more than a
> > million and using my own "scam" to win auctions, which only works versus
> > the "conventional" way of winning them by bidding amounts of cash you
> > actually own.
> >
> > I CFJ: "There is currently more than one auction for Estates"
> >
> > That's all.
>
> This is CFJ 3537. I assign it to V.J. Rada.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7865-7866

[V.J Rada]

I vote FOR them both

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 6.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
> also a valid vote).
>
>
> ID  Author(s)AI   Title   Pender Pend fee
> (sh.)
> 
> ---
> 7865*   Aris, o, [1] 3.1  Regulations v4  Aris   6
> 7866*   o, Quazie, [2]   1.7  More Betterer Pledges   o  6
>
>
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>
> IDAuthor(s)  AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> (sh.)
> 
> ---
> pp1*  nichdel, o, [3]2.0  Economics Overhaul v2   CuddleBeam  6
>
>
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>
> [1] nichdel, ais523
> [2] G., Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐
> [3] grok, Aris
>
> The Pending List Price (PLP) is 5 shinies.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 7865
> Title: Regulations v4
> Adoption index: 3.1
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: o, nichdel, ais523
>
>
> Change the title of Rule 2125, "Regulation Regulations", to "Regulated
> Actions".
>
> Amend Rules 2125 and 1023 by changing all instances of the word
> "regulated" to
> "restricted", and all instances of the word "unregulated" to
> "unrestricted".
>
> Amend Rule 2143, "Official Reports and Duties," by changing all instances
> of the
> word "regulations" to "restrictions".
>
> Create a new power 3.1 rule entitled "Regulations", with the flowing text:
>
>   A Regulation is an instrument defined as such by this rule. A regulation
>   allows an officer (known as the Promulgator) to exercise rule defined
> powers.
>   A regulation is in effect continuously from the time of its creation to
> the
>   time of either its revocation or the repeal of the rule that allowed for
> its
>   creation. When recommending a regulation, its Promulgator must specify by
>   number the rule(s) upon which it is based (the parent rules), the list of
>   which becomes an integral part of the regulation. The list of rules can
>   generally be modified by the Promulgator according to the procedure for
> text
>   changes.
>
>   A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for it to
> exist.
>   A regulation has effect on the game (only) insofar as the rule or rules
> that
>   authorized it permit it to have effect, and a regulation generally
> inherits
>   the power of its least powerful parent rule, unless its Promulgator
> defines
>   a lower power. If reasonably possible, a regulation should be
>   interpreted so as to defer to other rules. The procedure for resolving
>   conflict between regulations is the same as it is for rules.
>
>   Regulations are generally issued according to the following procedures,
>   and they can be repealed by the announcement of their Promulgator.
> Alternate
>   procedures may be used if provided for by all of the regulations's parent
>   rules. If one parent rule specifies procedures that are more stringent
> than
>   those that the other(s) specifies, those apply. Creating, modifying,
> revoking,
>   or allowing for a regulation is secured at power 1.
>
>   A regulation (or set of regulations), authorized by another rule, may
>   generally be enacted or modified by its promulgator without 2 objections,
>   or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the previous sentence is
>   known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s) are said to be
>   "recommended" to Agora.
>
>
> Create a new power 1 rule, entitled "The Regkeepor", with the following
> text:
>
>   The Regkeepor is an office, responsible for the maintenance of the
>   Regulations. The Regulations are contained in the Regkeepor's weekly
> report,
>   know as the Agora Nomic Code of Regulations (ACORN). E MAY publish
> multiple
>   versions or editions of the ACORN.
>
>   The ACORN is divided into titles, assigned by the Regkeepor, which are
>   each given an integer.  Generally, each office with the power to create
>   regulations SHOULD be assigned the next successive natural number. Title
> 0 of
>   the ACORN is reserved for use by the Regkeepor, and nothing in that title
>   need be a regulation. Non-regulations printed in the ACORN
>   have no binding effect, and SHALL clearly be marked by the Regkeepor.
>
>   Each regulation SHALL be assigned an ID number by the Regkeepor,
> consisting
>   of a string of the characters [0-9] and separator characters. The
> Regkeepor
>   SHOULD establish some way of keeping track of the version of a
> regulations.
>   The Regkeepor MAY also, at eir discretion, create ways of 

Re: BUS: CFJ 3523 judged TRUE

[V.J Rada]

I call for reconsideration. There was also some controversy
about whether or not a barring attempt made after the calling
 of the CFJ worked. This judgement should resolve that.

On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 1:55 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Juge's arguments for CFJ 3523:
>
> As the caller argues, "TTttPF" (this time to the Public Forum) has a very
> specific meaning and effect. It causes the actions that would have been
> taken
> had the quoted message been originally sent to the public forum to be
> taken.
> Despite being defined by no rule, game custom makes its meaning clear to
> all
> players. The question here is whether other, less established forms may
> have
> similar effect. "TTttPF" is a creature entirely of convention. It has
> effect
> because all players understand what it means. The message here could not,
> in context, be reasonably misunderstood. I therefore rule that it has
> effect,
> but only in this particular instance. There are other cases where the
> phrasing
> could be misunderstood. For example, what if the player took other actions
> in the new message? Then the meaning could be "this action didn't work, and
> I've changed my mind and am doing other actions". Unlikely, but possible.
> I thus
> rule that the established phrasing should be preferred for its lack of
> ambiguity, and this case's phrasing succeeded because, in context, it
> lacked
> any other reasonable interpretation. TRUE.
>

BUS: Elections

[V.J Rada]

In case they exist, i vote PRESENT in each current officeholder election.

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3533 assigned to omd

[V.J Rada]

I CFJ on V.J. Rada initiated three elections on 27 June

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 10:49 +0100, V.J Rada wrote:
>>
>>> I CFJ on "V.J. Rada initiated three elections on 27 June"
>>>
>>
>> This is CFJ 3533. I assign it to omd.
>>
>
> I believe this is in error as the original message was to the discussion
> list.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday celebration thread

[V.J Rada]

I wish Agora a happy birthday.
I award myself a magenta ribbon.

too late?

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> NttPF
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 2017, at 11:51 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I wish Agora a happy birthday.
> > I award myself a magenta ribbon.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I wish Agora a happy birthday.
> > I award myself a magenta ribbon.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 29, 2017, at 8:15 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today, Agoran Birthday, is.
> > >
> > > Myself a Magenta Ribbon, I grant.
> >
> >
>
>

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Appeal of CFJ 3534; go vote!

[V.J Rada]

I change my vote to endorse ais523

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 9:44 PM, Quazie  wrote:

> I endorse ais523
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 13:04 Alex Smith  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 17:57 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > I initiate the Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in the
>> > judgement of CFJ 3534.
>>
>> I vote REMAND. It's clear at this point that my judgement, whilst
>> complete in terms of the small details, is rather missing the large
>> ones.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>

Re: BUS: Language Trophies

[V.J Rada]

I apologize for not using spivak at times, I often
write hastily on my phone and autocorrect is a
. I do try to remember though.

I object to the new trophies.

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:

> On 06/29/2017 11:43 AM, CuddleBeam wrote:
>
> >Also, I miss the time when we mostly spoke Spivak
> Spivak is useful to too annoying for me to use lol, mostly because I have
> to stop and think about the pronouns I'm using.
> I'll keep on using him/she/they as I find most enjoyable, and as a variant
> of English (one that doesn't have Spivak), and given our broad language
> acceptance, I believe it should be all acceptable.
>
> This, to my mind, is beyond the pale. The fact that you're unwilling to
> 'stop and think' for other people's comfort. The fact that you are either
> willfully or ignorantly conflating 'technically acceptable' and 'I can call
> people whatever I want and not care about eir feelings'.
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Appeal of CFJ 3534; go vote!

[V.J Rada]

I voted before in discussion in the wrong thread rip.
I vote AFFIRM

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:57 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 09:47 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > You're misconstruing what e said. E said that eir assignments _did_
> > give everyone a "reasonably equal" opportunity to judge.  I any case,
> > I object to the finger pointing (not that objecting does anything). I
> > further support the intent to enter the judgment into Moot, and do
> > so.
>
> Aris + Cuddlebeam + Publius Scribonius Scholasticus = 3, that's enough.
> I was going to say "with all these new players, people have forgotten
> that Moots are broken", but it turns out that we fixed them at some
> point, so perhaps this will actually work.
>
> I initiate the Agoran Decision to determine public confidence in the
> judgement of CFJ 3534.
>
> For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor, and the valid
> options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
> Quorum for this decision is 6.
>
> A reminder of the typical meanings of each option:
>
> AFFIRM: The judgement was broadly correct;
> REMAND: The judgement should be reconsidered by the original judge to
> contain more detail or reasoning behind the judgement, or to take into
> account points not previously considered;
> REMIT: The judgement was incorrect and should be tried again by a
> different judge.
>
> [A side note: despite having been a player for years, I don't remember
> ever having initiated an Agoran Decision before. I guess those tend to
> be confined to particular offices.]
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

BUS: Rewording of a CFJ

[V.J Rada]

I retract the 2nd CFJ I filed. I CFJ on the statement
"A player other than the ADoP may initiate elections
for an office by announcement if that office has been
deputized for within the last 2 weeks or no election
has occured for that office within the last 90 days. V.J.
Rada initiated 3 such elections on 27 June"

I request that the judge (oh, I bar CuddleBeam) take
notice of the agora discussion thread beginning with
me calling those elections.

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[V.J Rada]

Tttpf

On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> COE, I also pointed a finger at G last week (for making a fake report,
> ruled Shenanigans)
>
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','o...@grimoire.ca');>> wrote:
>
>> As Referee, I believe there are no outstanding rules violations in the
>> preceding Agoran week, for which a Card has not already been issued. I
>> publish the following report:
>>
>> Referee's Weekly Report
>>
>> Date of this report: Sun, 25 Jun 2017
>> Date of last report: Sun, 18 Jun 2017
>>
>>
>> Recent events (all times UTC)
>>
>> - previous report -
>> Tue, 13 Jun 2017 08:38:01  V.J Rada Pointed the Finger at CuddleBeam
>> Wed, 14 Jun 2017 06:42:59  o issued two Yellow Cards for Tardiness
>> Thu, 15 Jun 2017 06:16:42  CuddleBeam issued a Yellow Card for
>> Tardiness
>> Fri, 16 Jun 2017 05:02:37  o apologized for Tardiness
>> Fri, 16 Jun 2017 06:37:38  o apologized for Tardiness
>> - time of last report -
>> Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:36:40  P.S.S.[1] Pointed the Finger at Murphy
>> Tue, 20 Jun 2017 12:51:40  P.S.S.[1] Pointed the Finger at omd
>> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 03:50:43  V.J Rada Pointed the Finger at gaelan
>> Wed, 21 Jun 2017 06:15:02  Finger Pointed at omd found to be Shenanigans
>> Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:22:51  Murphy issued a Green Card for Faking
>> Fri, 23 Jun 2017 20:52:09  Gaelan issued two Green Cards for Tardiness
>>
>>
>> Green Cards:
>>
>> Player  On Reason
>> 
>> P.S.S.[1]   May 16, 2017   Tardiness
>> P.S.S.[1]   May 20, 2017   Ambiguity
>> Murphy  Jun 22, 2017   Faking
>> Gaelan  Jun 23, 2017   Tardiness
>> Gaelan  Jun 23, 2017   Tardiness
>>
>> [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>>
>> Yellow Cards:
>>
>> PlayerUntil  Reason   Apology Words
>> ---
>> Quazie   (Apr 26, 2017)  Bankruptcy
>> o(Apr 22, 2017)  Tardiness
>> o(Jul 15, 2017)  Tardiness
>> o(Jul 15, 2017)  Tardiness
>> CuddleBeamJul 16, 2017   TardinessI
>>   Judge
>>   CFJ
>>   3509
>>   To
>>   Be
>>   TRUE
>>
>> Dates in (parentheses) indicate a completed apology.
>>
>>
>> Red Cards: None
>>
>>
>> Pink Slips:
>>
>> Player   On Office   Reason
>> 
>> Gaelan   May 22, 2017   Rulekeepor   Forgery
>>
>>

Re: BUS: 2CFJs

[V.J Rada]

I bar Cuddlebeam from both CFJs (this may be invalid depending on the
result of a pending CFJ on a similar bar)
On Wednesday, June 28, 2017, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I CFJ on the statement
> "The Japanese message filed by 天火狐 on 27 June deputized him as the
> Reportor"
> I CFJ on the statement
> "A player other than the ADOP may initiate elections by announcement if an
> office has been deputies for withim the last 2 weeks or no election has
> occurred within 90 days. V.J Rada successfully initiated 3 such elections
> on June 27".
>

BUS: 2CFJs

[V.J Rada]

I CFJ on the statement
"The Japanese message filed by 天火狐 on 27 June deputized him as the Reportor"
I CFJ on the statement
"A player other than the ADOP may initiate elections by announcement if an
office has been deputies for withim the last 2 weeks or no election has
occurred within 90 days. V.J Rada successfully initiated 3 such elections
on June 27".

BUS: Elections

[V.J Rada]

Because I am rather bored, I initiate elections for Prime Minister, Herald
and Report or by announcement.

BUS: Re: 3527 judgement

[V.J Rada]

I also point the finger at gaelan for being late on two CFJs and the SLR
(twice, I think)

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:48 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Can a decimal amount of Shinies be transferred? I find that it cannot. The
> word "amount" is ambiguous enough for other considerations to come into
> play, and the intent of the rules, other clauses in the ruleset, and
> consequences all point towards an interpretation that only integers can be
> transferred. I find this CFJ false.
>
> This CFJ comes from omd, who attempted to give 0.5 Shinies to ais523
> and called for judgement on whether ais523 had 0 Shinies. His legal
> theory was that because decimals are an impossible value for Balance
> Switches, ais523's Switch would reset to its default: 0. However the
> threshold question is, can this decimal transfer have any effect?
>
> "Any player CAN pay Agora, any other player, or any organization any
> amount by announcement, unless it would make eir own balance
> negative.", states rule 2483. Is a decimal quantity an amount? Because
> amount is undefined, I look to the ordinary meaning. It is clear that "an
> amount of money" includes any number of parts or subparts of monetary
> units, but "an amount of coins" implies an integer of coins, not half a
> coin. Shinies are like coins. The ruleset cabins Balance Switches to
> only integers and no other value. Others have proposed a different
> physical analogy. Balance Switches are like the switch on a radio: it's
> a knob but it only changes at integers. Whatever the analogy
> preferred, the words "an amount of money" is more naturally interpreted
> as an integer amount.
>
> The consequences of allowing players to transfer to other players non-
> integer amounts of money would be disastrous. It is very probable
> (although I do not decide it) that a player would be able to immediately
> null another player's balance with such a transfer. A financial system
> open to such mischief would be a great shame. Additionally, allowing
> decimals could open the way to more complicated mathematical
> constructs, which would be a nightmare to track if it worked.
>
> This trick also has, as far as I know, no support in game practise, at
> least in the current economic system.
>
> For the foregoing reasons, the transfer between omd and ais523
> never occurred. ais523 has (I believe) 66 shinies, the judgement
> is FALSE
>

BUS: 3527 judgement

[V.J Rada]

Can a decimal amount of Shinies be transferred? I find that it cannot. The
word "amount" is ambiguous enough for other considerations to come into
play, and the intent of the rules, other clauses in the ruleset, and
consequences all point towards an interpretation that only integers can be
transferred. I find this CFJ false.

This CFJ comes from omd, who attempted to give 0.5 Shinies to ais523
and called for judgement on whether ais523 had 0 Shinies. His legal
theory was that because decimals are an impossible value for Balance
Switches, ais523's Switch would reset to its default: 0. However the
threshold question is, can this decimal transfer have any effect?

"Any player CAN pay Agora, any other player, or any organization any
amount by announcement, unless it would make eir own balance
negative.", states rule 2483. Is a decimal quantity an amount? Because
amount is undefined, I look to the ordinary meaning. It is clear that "an
amount of money" includes any number of parts or subparts of monetary
units, but "an amount of coins" implies an integer of coins, not half a
coin. Shinies are like coins. The ruleset cabins Balance Switches to
only integers and no other value. Others have proposed a different
physical analogy. Balance Switches are like the switch on a radio: it's
a knob but it only changes at integers. Whatever the analogy
preferred, the words "an amount of money" is more naturally interpreted
as an integer amount.

The consequences of allowing players to transfer to other players non-
integer amounts of money would be disastrous. It is very probable
(although I do not decide it) that a player would be able to immediately
null another player's balance with such a transfer. A financial system
open to such mischief would be a great shame. Additionally, allowing
decimals could open the way to more complicated mathematical
constructs, which would be a nightmare to track if it worked.

This trick also has, as far as I know, no support in game practise, at
least in the current economic system.

For the foregoing reasons, the transfer between omd and ais523
never occurred. ais523 has (I believe) 66 shinies, the judgement
is FALSE

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[V.J Rada]

Hey wait a minute: "These "rules" for running the Lottery can be changed
with 2 Agoran Support (or an emulation of it)."

Emulation means imitation, attempting to match the function by pretending.
And Cuddlebeam seems to claim the right to unilaterally change the rules:
he said that "I add this rule by *an emulation* of Agoran Support

I add a rule to this pledge to "I, Cuddlebeam, will timely (within 7 days)
give all my shinies to V.J Rada.". He can still run a lottery whatever idc.

I will emulate 2 Agoran support (which I still think in this context means
the support of 2 players) by pretending all my friends called Jeff (there
are 11 of them) joined this game and supported me, which is similar to the
real process of obtaining support. Emulation.

Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer lottery

[V.J Rada]

I would like to change the rules to
I pledge to run a lottery and pay the lottery victor(s) according to the
following:
I will divide all my shinies and other assets into three pieces, to be
given to V.J. Rada and the first two players who support this rule change,
on June 30.

plz support.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:40 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> With an emulation of 2 Agoran Support, I'm going to add to the "rules" of
> the lottery the following:
>
> - Purchasers of a HAFL Ticket must also choose a 5-number string for their
> ticket, which is that "ticket's number" (which defaults to being 0).
>

Re: BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

By the by, The second option is incorrect, relying on the subject
line as it does. Quoting 1880:

"Using the precedent given to us from CFJ 1784, the correct way to

interpret this public message would be to cover up the subject line and

read the body of the message by itself."

>From 1784 (which btw is exactly relevant)

"I find that this is not unclear or ambiguous; as noted in

CFJ 1631, the subject header of an email message is not part of the
message content."




On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:22 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> --Bar
> I bar Cuddlebeam
> --Statement--
> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> ---Evidence
> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>
> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
> despite accepting reconsideration.
> ---Argument
> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> judgement is valid.
>
> GLHF!
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:21 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Or w/ proper line spacing
>>
>> --Bar
>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>> --Statement--
>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>> ---Evidence
>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
>> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
>> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>>
>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
>> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
>> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
>> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
>> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
>> despite accepting reconsideration.
>> ---Argument
>> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
>> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
>> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
>> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
>> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
>> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
>> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
>> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
>> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
>> judgement is valid.
>>
>> GLHF!
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:20 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> --Bar
>>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>>> --Statement--
>>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>>> ---Evidence
>>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what
>>> happened though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be
>>> too much of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>>>
>>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they
>>> ref

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3526 assigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I retract all unassigned CFJs I have called

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:49 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they
> > exist.
>
> Oh. If there were three separate CFJs, I actually assigned the third
> one, I think (on the assumption that it would have the best
> formatting). So you'll need to retract the first one too in order to
> avoid ambiguity. (You can't retract a CFJ once it's been assigned, so
> no need to worry about accidentally destroying the one you want.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3526 assigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I retract any CFJs that are not the first one I just called, if they exist.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:47 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
wrote:

> On Wed, 2017-06-14 at 09:22 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > --Bar
> > I bar Cuddlebeam
> > --Statement--
> > I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>
> I'm interpreting these three messages as a single action, split across
> three messages (rather than calling three effectively identical CFJs).
> I recommend resolving the potential ambiguity by retracting any CFJs
> you've created other than the one that I'm assigning here.
>
> This is CFJ 3526. I assign it to o.
>
> > ---Evidence
> > This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> > though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> > of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
> >
> > On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> > to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved
> for
> > reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June
> 1,
> > CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> > to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it
> again,
> > despite accepting reconsideration.
> > ---Argument
> > There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> > judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The
> later
> > judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If
> the
> > statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> > reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is
> FALSE
> > because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> > CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> > Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> > it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> > judgement is valid.
> >
> > GLHF!
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

Re: BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

--Bar
I bar Cuddlebeam
--Statement--
I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
---Evidence
This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
despite accepting reconsideration.
---Argument
There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
judgement is valid.

GLHF!


On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:21 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Or w/ proper line spacing
>
> --Bar
> I bar Cuddlebeam
> --Statement--
> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> ---Evidence
> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>
> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
> despite accepting reconsideration.
> ---Argument
> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> judgement is valid.
>
> GLHF!
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:20 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> --Bar
>> I bar Cuddlebeam
>> --Statement--
>> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
>> ---Evidence
>> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
>> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
>> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>>
>> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
>> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
>> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
>> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
>> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
>> despite accepting reconsideration.
>> ---Argument
>> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
>> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
>> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
>> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
>> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
>> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
>> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
>> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
>> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
>> judgement is valid.
>>
>> GLHF!
>>
>
>

Re: BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

Or w/ proper line spacing

--Bar
I bar Cuddlebeam
--Statement--
I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
---Evidence
This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
despite accepting reconsideration.
---Argument
There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
judgement is valid.

GLHF!


On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:20 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> --Bar
> I bar Cuddlebeam
> --Statement--
> I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
> ---Evidence
> This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
> though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
> of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig
>
> On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
> to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
> reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
> CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
> to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
> despite accepting reconsideration.
> ---Argument
> There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
> judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
> judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
> statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
> reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
> because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
> CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
> Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
> it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
> judgement is valid.
>
> GLHF!
>

BUS: I CFJ

[V.J Rada]

--Bar
I bar Cuddlebeam
--Statement--
I call for judgement on this statement. "CFJ 3509 has no judgement"
---Evidence
This statement is not authoritative, it's a true account of what happened
though. If you want the original messages, surely it wouldn't be too much
of a hardship. Or you can ask me for them and I'll dig

On May 24, Cuddlebeam was assigned 3509 and 3508. On May 25, they refused
to judge 3509. On May 25, they judged it DISMISS. On May 25, PSS moved for
reconsideration. On May 25, Cuddlebeam accepted reconsideration. On June 1,
CB submitted a message titled "Judgement of CFJ 3509" with identical text
to their previous Judgement in CFJ 3508. They now refuse to judge it again,
despite accepting reconsideration.
---Argument
There are three possibilities. 1: The statement is TRUE. The DISMISS
judgement is invalid as overridden by him agreeing to reconsider. The later
judgement is invalid as a judgement for a different statement. NOTE: If the
statement is TRUE, the CFJ has been open for over 7 days and can be
reassigned wink wink nudge nudge put me in coach. 2: The statement is FALSE
because the latter judgement is valid, even if it refers to a different
CFJ. 3: The statement is FALSE because the earlier judgement is valid.
Cuddlebeam agreed to reconsider it, but on June 10 again refused to judge
it. This should be taken as a refusal to reconsider. Thus, the DISMISS
judgement is valid.

GLHF!

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Interaction between CFJ 1709 and R869

[V.J Rada]

"I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
reasons, let's see what happens though"

TTttPF

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:15 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I Point My Finger at um... what's your nickname? Kerim, anyway. For clear
> reasons, let's see what happens though.
>
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 3:41 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
>> > 1 - Current rules are certainly not handled by 10 year old CFJs... BUT2
>> - A non-player
>> > interacting with the game can't be compelled to act, but if they do act
>> they are wilfully
>> > agreeing and can be bound by the rules - meaning they can't just do
>> illegal things and
>> > have them succeed, as they are `playing the game` and thus must abide
>> by the rules.
>>
>> No, "acting" in general within Agora is not a wilful agreement on the
>> rules in and of
>> itself.  The actual players may "play the game" by adjusting records
>> according to the
>> rules to reflect a non-player's actions, but that doesn't mean the
>> non-player has agreed
>> to it.
>>
>> They still can't do IMPOSSIBLE things, though they could do ILLEGAL
>> things and not
>> be punished.
>>
>> Let's test it, shall we?  Here's one that's written for PERSONS (Rule
>> 2143):
>>A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
>>misleading while performing an official duty, or within a
>>document purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly
>>or monthly report.
>>
>> Therefore,  I purport the following document is part of the Registrar's
>> Weekly Report:
>>
>> [beginning of document]
>>
>>  Player   Contact
>>  Registered
>>  --   ---
>>  --
>>  DoggleBoon   cuddlebeam at googlemail.com20 May
>> 17
>>
>> [end of document]
>>
>> I'll leave it to Players to decide how to resolve my above statement,
>> while noting
>> that I DO NOT AGREE OR CONSENT TO ABIDE OR OTHERWISE BE BOUND BY THE
>> RULES.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

BUS: I Point the Finger

[V.J Rada]

I Point the Finger at Cuddlebeam. On 25 May he said "I pledge to not
submit Judgement on CFJ 3509."
(
https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034882.html
).
On that very same date, he did.
(
https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034886.html
).

Re: BUS: Votes

[V.J Rada]

Additionally on
7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders...
I VOTE PRESENT


On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:04 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7
> I VOTE FOR
> 7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial Updates
> I VOTE FOR
> 7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7
> I VOTE PRESENT
> 7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)
> Believing that the triviality of proposals should remain vague, I VOTE FOR
> 7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges
> I VOTE FOR
> 7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders
>

BUS: Votes

[V.J Rada]

7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7
I VOTE FOR
7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial Updates
I VOTE FOR
7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7
I VOTE PRESENT
7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)
Believing that the triviality of proposals should remain vague, I VOTE FOR
7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges
I VOTE FOR
7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3522 assigned to Murphy

[V.J Rada]

Gratutity.

I would rule the following to each of these questions.
1: The May report had a self-ratifying section, which is every player not
marked with an exclamation mark next to their (eir?) ribbon holdings.
Murphy's judgement did not rule the document internally inconsistent.
2: As Alexis's ribbon ownership had a disputed mark next to it, it doesn't
self-ratify. " effective in preventing the self-ratification of that
> report from including "X is Y" in its scope." is not ambiguous in holding
that. ais523's Ribbon Ownership did self ratify even if it was incorrect,
because ais himself didn't mark it as disputed.
3: Not necessary to answer, but I would argue that 1)the gamestate was
changed in the minimal way to make ais have a White Ribbon and 2) the
gamestate was modified in the minimal way to have Alexis's Ribbon be in
dispute.
4: Not necessary but isn't it longstanding that a report that is
inconsistent fails to ratify in its entirety, unless the preamble conflicts
with the body? The October report could do nothing.

The statement is TRUE

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[V.J Rada]

TTttPF

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:09 AM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I vote PRESENT on all 3
>
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On the election for Secretary, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>> On the election for Superintendent, I endorse the incumbent.
>>
>> On the election for Tailor, my vote consists of the following:
>>* First, if a candidate for the office of Tailor pledges to award me a
>> grAy ribbon in eir next monthly report if they become Tailor, I cast my
>> first-priority votes for that candidate. If there is more than one such
>> candidate, preference is given to the earliest such pledge.
>>* Next, the final candidate before the vote is closed who transfers me
>> a Shiny for the purpose of securing my vote is awarded my second-priority
>> votes. (Which, to clarify, if the first priority votes are empty, the
>> second-priority votes de facto become first-priority votes)
>>* Otherwise, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>>
>> On 9 June 2017 at 14:13, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I vote as follows:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election
>>>> since the
>>>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
>>>> Secretary. For
>>>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>>> the
>>>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I endorse o
>>>
>>>
>>> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
>>>> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
>>>> Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
>>>> the
>>>> valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it,
>>> i'll stick with it.
>>> I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since
>>>> the
>>>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor.
>>>> For
>>>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>>>> the
>>>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>>>
>>>
>>> I endorse ais523
>>>
>>
>>
>

BUS: Gratuitous re the Murphy CFJ

[V.J Rada]

Quazie said this:  "e sent the message to the wrong place twice". However,
the original CFJ message appears on the business archives. It also appears
on my outbox sent to agora-business@agoranomic.org, not the discussion
page. I believe the original CFJ did count and thus the resolver of this
CFJ must decide whether a player must bar someone in the same post as their
full CFJ.

I would argue that TRUE is the case as common sense etc would make it
easier on players who accidentally forget something, and there is a
perfectly sensible textual reading that allows it being sent in a seperate
message (that is that barring is seperate).

I am also curious as to whether my CFJ will have to be relitigated if
Murphy's CFJ were to be judged false? I don't think that would be the case
but just asking.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Call for Judgement

[V.J Rada]

i sent this to the wrong place

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:59 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I additionally bar ais523 from judgement of this case.
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 1:45 PM, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Call for Judgement
>> The Tailor's recent statement in the preamble of his June 6 report that "the
>> well-known "disputed" mark in reports has... no legal effect." was
>> legally correct
>> Evidence
>> Rule 1551, Ratification, reads in relevant part
>> [When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
>> notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at
>> the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been
>> minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as
>> possible.]
>> The preamble of the Tailor's report on June 6 reads
>> [Before the main body of the report, a summary of what I believe to have
>>
>> happened with respect to Alexis: eir own White Ribbon was never legally
>> given, and nor was the White Ribbon e gave me; but I forgot at the time
>> of the last report that my own White Ribbon holding was disputed, and
>> thus marked only Alexis' as such. The report itself was not CoEd, and
>> thus self-ratified a week later. As far as I can tell, what therefore
>> happened was that both me and Alexis gained a White Ribbon at the time
>> of ratification (being the minimum change to the gamestate required to
>> give all the Ribbon Ownership switches the value the report stated they
>> held; note that the statement that Alexis' switch had a disputed value
>> is not in its own right self-ratifying, although being a true
>> statement, it wouldn't matter if it were; ratifying a true statement
>> has no effect).
>>
>> This seems something like a bug that should perhaps be fixed, as
>> reporting on disputes is currently impossible to do "correctly" without
>> CoEing your own report and resolving the CoE with a reference to the
>> CFJ in question, something that I hadn't realised would be required.
>> The well-known "disputed" mark in reports, has, as far as I can tell,
>>
>> no legal effect.
>>
>>
>> If someone believes that I've misinterpreted the law here, I'd
>> recommend calling a CFJ. Alternatively, if someone feels that I've
>> interpreted it correctly but that the situation is nonetheless unfair,
>> the correct solution probably involves a proposal. (Perhaps we should
>> create some sort of rules-wide equity system. I know G. would probably
>> be a fan of that.)]
>>
>> Argument
>> I disagree with the statement that the disputed mark has no legal effect,
>> and therefore, as suggested by the Tailor himself, call a CFJ. Game
>> practice clearly shows (as the Tailor admits by calling it "well-known")
>> that marking an aspect of a report "disputed" is often used; I believe that
>> the intent of this use is to mark a fact in a report as possibly incorrect,
>> and therefore its very inclusion in the report should not lead to its
>> finality. I believe that the best judgement would be that the use of the
>> disputed mark implies that the previously listed words in the report are
>> arguably factually incorrect, and thus ratification of the report would
>> continue that possibility instead of precluding it. Common sense affirms
>> this course of action. As the Tailor notes, it seems silly to make it
>> impossible for the very writer of a report to cast aspersions its contents
>> except by CoE. In addition, the possible unfairness of this factual
>> situation itself leads to this conclusion. A person who wished to make a
>> CoE may have stopped due to the presence of the disputed mark, only to be
>> caught off card by this new legal opinion.
>>
>> Alternatively, "internally inconsistent" reports or statements cannot be
>> ratified. Stating a fact in the same way as other facts and then
>> contradicting that fact with the disputed mark is internally inconsistent.
>>
>> In either case, this case should be judged FALSE, and marking a fact
>> "Disputed" in a ratified statement should be judged to have legal effect.
>>
>>
>