DIS: Re: BUS: Can't recuse myself? Try a panel of two..
Sgeo wrote:
I make the following pledge:
{
This is a pledge, and a public contract. If I am on an appeals panel,
any member of an appeals panel that I'm on may, by announcement, act
on my behalf to cause me to support a decision in that appeals case.
This pledge terminates as soon as I am not on any appeals panels.
}
Appeal panel is not explicitly defined, but should clearly be
interpreted as judicial panel assigned to an appeal case for the
purpose of this pledge. Thus, this applies to 2027a and 2048b.
Note that you could also just pre-emptively support anything that a
fellow panelist intends, until such time as you are not on any judicial
panels assigned to an appeal case.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
I wrote: I initiate an inquiry case on the following statements, disqualifying Quazie (who pointed this out to me via IM): If a partner acts on behalf of a partnership to cast a vote, that vote is still cast by that partner, and is thus subject to that partner's voting limit. If a partner acts on behalf of a partnership to transfer an asset, it is still the partner's asset that is transferred (provided that e has such an asset, and that the transfer is otherwise POSSIBLE). Caller's arguments: These are possible reductio ad absurdum examples in favor of overturning the precedent of CFJs 2050 and 2090. Note the judgement of CFJ 1895, which draws a distinction between act on behalf of (contracts) and act as if e held a particular office/position (deputisation). I retract any inquiry cases initiated by the above. I initiate two inquiry cases on the statements noted above, with the arguments noted above.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Addition and subtraction mod 11 are moderately less obnoxious to figure out than division. Well, ok, when you're dealing with single-digit operands addition is incredibly simple and subtraction's not much worse once you get your mind around the whole wrapping of negative values thing. Still, a chart to glance at and say ok, I have these crops and these mills, what can I make? would be nice. Of course, something like Murphy's spendable chords thing would be even nicer. Maybe I'll work on that when I'm done with the web-based color Tailor's report I'm working on. (Of course, getting a web browser to display ultraviolet to really get the report to be accurate could take years)
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2133 == CFJ 2133 == Speech act. The previous sentence is false. results in speech act being performed. Gratuitous argument: Zefram's assertion that a speech act is only true the instant it is performed means that Speech act followed by The previous statement is false is not any kind of contradiction, as the speech act is false at the instant the second sentence is made. However, if the above CFJ is judged at the time when 2149 was in place, Zefram's assertion is contradicted by the idea that the truth or falsity of the whole is what is significant. I'm adding this argument here as it will affect the re-judgement of 2087 as well. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 3:02 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2133 == Speech act. The previous sentence is false. results in speech act being performed. I judge FALSE. CFJ 1971 establishes that a disclaimer posted at the end of the message CAN, in general, affect whether actions are taken in the message in question. In this decision, it was opined that if the performance of the action in question was not dependent on the truth of the statement initiating the action, then the action could occur despite the disclaimer. Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087, dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Whups, I was too late! This nullifies Zefram's arguments in 2087, dunno what to do with that now. -Goethe Zefram: For the record, I am dubious about this interpretation of a statement being made, and action being taken, at a particular instant. Making the statement is a process which takes non-zero time, and the statement's truth is evaluated (and any actions take effect) in the context of that process. Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems to me that the context of the process of making a statement contained in a message is the publication of that entire message. While the ordering of actions announced in a message can be significant, we should in general take the published message as a whole to take effect at the moment it was published, and non-action disclaimers should be applied to what they claim to apply to, regardless of where in the message they occur. I'd argue for a ruling of TRUE in 2086/2087 based on Zefram's arguments, and clearly you think the same arguments point to FALSE. My belief is that each statement in the message initiating CFJs 2086 and 2087 must be evaluated at the moment of the publication of that message. While I'm not sure a phrase like simultaneous but ordered makes sense, it's one I might use in this situation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: While I'm not sure a phrase like simultaneous but ordered makes sense, it's one I might use in this situation. Simultaneous but ordered makes perfect sense, but that breaks when a later message goes back and modifies a previous one (the preceding sentence is...) Here's how we Used To Deal With It: 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Maybe I'm misreading this, but it seems to me that the context of the process of making a statement contained in a message is the publication of that entire message. While the ordering of actions announced in a message can be significant, we should in general take the published message as a whole to take effect at the moment it was published, and non-action disclaimers should be applied to what they claim to apply to, regardless of where in the message they occur. I'd argue for a ruling of TRUE in 2086/2087 based on Zefram's arguments, and clearly you think the same arguments point to FALSE. Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent, then, to use R1527 as a method of resolution. Under R1527, the back-and- forth referring would constitute an ambiguous ordering and thus the attempts would fail leading 2086/2087 to be false. 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. -Goethe
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2077 assigned to comex
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 2:59 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: == CFJ 2077 == Ivan Hope is a player Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged FALSE?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2077 assigned to comex
== CFJ 2077 Ivan Hope is a player Is there anyone who thinks this should not be judged FALSE? hmm... would not judging it FALSE make it TRUE? I think it ought not to be judged FALSE, but on moral grounds not Agoran-rules grounds. ihope hadn't really intended to deregister, despite posting a message doing so... OTOH, morally speaking, shouldn't ihope be made to bear the consequences of posting noise to the PF?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2103a assigned to woggle, Wooble, ais523
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible meaning of 'I lie'). In the context of the defendant's message, I can't see any way you could take I lie to be an unambiguous attempt to flip eir posture.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2103a assigned to woggle, Wooble, ais523
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:17 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I consent, and also request the prior judge to consider whether the message in fact had the effect of making Sgeo supine (another possible meaning of 'I lie'). In the context of the defendant's message, I can't see any way you could take I lie to be an unambiguous attempt to flip eir posture. No, not unambiguous, and almost certainly failed if it was. But it's worth /considering/. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent, then, to use R1527 as a method of resolution. Under R1527, the back-and- forth referring would constitute an ambiguous ordering and thus the attempts would fail leading 2086/2087 to be false. Hmm... an old precedent, but the actions in CFJ 1267-70 were a lot more ambiguously ordered than anything considered here, yet one of them was still considered effective.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2136 assigned to BobTHJ
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:32 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recuse myself from this case.
I transfer one prop from BobTHJ to CotC Murphy, on account of the
hassle created by the former to the latter.
I pledge that anyone CAN act on behalf of me to transfer one prop from
BobTHJ to the CotC whenever BobTHJ recuses emself from a case,
provided that I am able and not forbidden to do so.
Proto-proposal
Interested Judges
Amend the judge asignment rule by appending the text:
{
A player CAN indicate their interest in a specific case by
announcement. Whenever the CotC assigns a judge to a case e SHALL
assign a judge who has indicated eir interest in that case if it is
possible for em to do so without violating any other requirements.
Judicial panels which include two or more players who have indicated
their interest in a specific case are also considered to be interested
in that case.
}
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2133 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, comex wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Followup: The old Rule 1527 has been repealed. Nothing has explicitly replaced it and so the Rules are silent on how to deal with those situations now. It is perfectly in keeping with custom and precedent, then, to use R1527 as a method of resolution. Under R1527, the back-and- forth referring would constitute an ambiguous ordering and thus the attempts would fail leading 2086/2087 to be false. Hmm... an old precedent, but the actions in CFJ 1267-70 were a lot more ambiguously ordered than anything considered here, yet one of them was still considered effective. If you read the judgements and appeals on those you'll see there was a lot of controversy (and I personally believe the wrong decision in 1267). In any case, that was a situation with two concurrent statements that didn't actually refer to each other, not statements which have a definite ordering in the message, but at the same time have to be taken as a simultaneous cross-referring whole. That's a different kind of ambiguity. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 2110
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:37 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 15 Aug 2008, ais523 wrote: I judge CFJ 2110 as follows: At the time the CFJ was called, its statement was FALSE. Vote validity is evaluated instantaneously (see root's gratuitous arguments and CFJs 1959 and 1960), and at the time the CFJ was called the Agoran Decision about the proposal in question was Democratic, therefore the same player cannot possibly have more than one valid vote on it. (The statement was true earlier, during the voting period for instance, but was false at the time the CFJ was called). Does this mean that the change to democratic can be made after results are announced (though before self-ratification)? -Goethe I think vote validity counts at the time that the results are announced. I was interpreting the CFJ statement literally, though, asking whether the votes were valid instantaneously rather than at the time the proposal was assessed. -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Promotor election
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 13:55 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Promotor office. The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the IADOP. The valid options are: * PerlNomic Partnership * comex * Murphy (who, as Assessor, is presently ineligible to hold the office, but could become eligible before the end of the voting period) * root (who is presently Inactive) --IADOP Wooble I vote for the PNP. I've almost finished writing Promotor code for it now (finished apart from the ability to retract proposals from the pool, and interfacing it with PerlNomic's vote-on-Agora code). -- ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Promotor election
2008/8/15 Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This message serves to initiate the Agoran Decision to choose the holder of the Promotor office. The eligible voters are the active players, and the vote collector is the IADOP. The valid options are: * PerlNomic Partnership * comex * Murphy (who, as Assessor, is presently ineligible to hold the office, but could become eligible before the end of the voting period) * root (who is presently Inactive) --IADOP Wooble How can you NOT vote PNP with this?: http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor
Re: SPAM: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Promotor election
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: How can you NOT vote PNP with this?: http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor Heh, my email system even labeled that message as spam. Arguably, it was... -- ais523
Re: SPAM: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADOP] Promotor election
2008/8/15 ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 23:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote: How can you NOT vote PNP with this?: http://nomic.info/perlnomic/current-proposals/proposal.ais523.code_for_being_the_Agoran_Promotor Heh, my email system even labeled that message as spam. Arguably, it was... -- ais523 Well, it's passed now. But http://nomic.info/perlnomic/ has the scripts.
DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50 Time of this report: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:31 Maximum Points Awardable: 60 Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidy. I create a Digit Ranch (land #122) with a Seed of 4 and a WRV in the possesion of woggle. Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. -woggle
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 2110
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does this mean that the change to democratic can be made after results are announced (though before self-ratification)? -Goethe I'd say that once an Agoran Decision is resolved, it's no longer a decision and can't be changed to Democratic. In any case, once a proposal takes effect and makes whatever changes it's making to the gamestate, it's sort of irrelevant if someone later wants to change the decision on whether to adopt it to be Democratic. On the other hand, I see nothing in the rules that would prevent someone from making a decision to adopt a proposal Democratic after the voting period has ended but before the decision has been resolved.
DIS: Re: BUS: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5673-5673
On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. comex: Stop messing around with the interface before the PNP is the Promotor; arguably you violated the PNP contract by causing it to distribute a vote when it wasn't allowed to. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5673-5673
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:41 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2008-08-15 at 15:38 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. comex: Stop messing around with the interface before the PNP is the Promotor; arguably you violated the PNP contract by causing it to distribute a vote when it wasn't allowed to. Hmmm... just testing it so that Agoran voters can see how the PNP would distribute proposals. Which seems fine, although it ought to send to official, not to business with a false OFF:
DIS: Re: BUS: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5673-5673
2008/8/15 The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This distribution of proposal 5673 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt it. The eligible voters for ordinary proposals are the active players, the eligible voters for democratic proposals are the active first-class players, and the vote collector is the Assessor. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 5673 D 2 3.1 fds test Fri Aug 15 15:37:38 2008 - agora-propose.cgi: comex added proposal /var/www/sites/nomic.info/perlnomic/agora-proposals/undistributed.1 to the pool. Fri Aug 15 15:38:27 2008 - agora-distribute.cgi: Distributing Agoran proposal 5673. You won't be getting away with this if the PNP is elected, thanks to the equity court.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5673-5673
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 6:47 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm... just testing it so that Agoran voters can see how the PNP would distribute proposals. Which seems fine, although it ought to send to official, not to business with a false OFF: Proposed, but I'll need to subscribe the email account to a-o.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
woggle wrote: On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 13:25, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 9:00 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 14:26, Roger Hicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: AGORAN AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION REPORT Time of last report: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 21:50 Time of this report: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:31 Maximum Points Awardable: 60 Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidy. I create a Digit Ranch (land #122) with a Seed of 4 and a WRV in the possesion of woggle. Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. http://xkcd.com/221/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is your RNG stuck on 4 or something? 4 4 ranches really aren't that useful these days. -woggle At the rate CFJs are being called lately I think 4s will be in high demand before too longjust wait for another 2k CFJs to be called. BobTHJ
