Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE

[Nicholas Evans]

Main problem is that Assessor and Rulekeepor are really demanding for
different reasons and it may be difficult to get someone to fill a combined
role consistently.

On Jul 8, 2017 16:16, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> "Ghost" Rulesets like the one we have now are disorientating.
>
> Proto:
> Merge Assesor and Rulekeepor, and have them publish the new ruleset once a
> proposal amending it is enacted.
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532:
>>
>> This call for judgment inquires whether the "existing solely" clause
>> (hereinafter The Clause) of Rule 2166, which defines assets, prevents
>> assets
>> referenced by multiple rules from existing. I turn first to the relevant
>> text
>> of the rule, which is as follows:
>>
>>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>>   existence.
>>
>> Clearly The Clause prevents, say, the sun from being defined as an asset.
>> This
>> is good, because if the sun could be an asset the rules might make it
>> destructible, and then we'd be forced to accept, for game purposes, that
>> there
>> was no sun. It would be even more problematic if we accepted persons, and
>> therefore players, as assets. Obviously the rules are free to make such
>> definitions anyway (although we might argue over whether they would have
>> any
>> effect, considering the interests of the game). However, in the past
>> we've allowed contracts to define assets, explaining the necessity of such
>> restrictions.
>>
>> The Clause prevents another class of situations as well. It prevents
>> two different rules from defining the same asset. In older forms, it has
>> done
>> the same for a rule and a contract (CFJs 1922-1923). The question raised
>> here is
>> whether even referencing an asset would create such a situation. This
>> raises
>> interesting questions about the way we interpret the rules. It has long
>> been
>> understood that even if a term used in the rules is undefined, we are
>> obliged to
>> try our best to figure out what it means. Thus, even without the rule
>> defining
>> shinies, we would "interpret them into existence". Without shinies,
>> pending
>> would be impossible, and we would be unable to pay out salaries, among
>> other
>> problems. So, it is apparent that we might consider shinies existent even
>> without the intervention of their defining rule, arguably triggering The
>> Clause.
>>
>> The historical interpretation of The Clause, however, does not support
>> this
>> argument. There are no precedents that clearly apply to this situation,
>> although
>> in CFJ 3381 the Honorable Judge ais523 appears to assume in passing that
>> such
>> things are possible. But our current situation is not unprecedented,
>> there are
>> merely no applicable _judicial_ precedents. Rule 2166 is not a new rule.
>> It was,
>> in fact, a rather aged rule at time it was repealed, and it only seems
>> new to
>> us because of its recent reenactment. One example of a similar situation
>> is the
>> point, which was the general unit of currency under this [1] ruleset. I
>> can find
>> no record of anyone complaining that they didn't exist.
>>
>> If we were to ignore history, would we find? Well, the idea that we
>> interpret
>> terms in the rules in a way that gives them effect is largely a matter of
>> tradition. No rule says that, in the absence of a definition from either
>> conventional English or the rules, we have to try to interpret the rules
>> the way
>> they are intended to be read. Another consideration is the interests of
>> the
>> game; certainly it would seem to be in the game's best interest to have a
>> definition for shinies, and all of the clarifications of their behavior
>> that
>> come with it.
>>
>> I know all the Platonists (if that is the right term, perhaps Logicians
>> would
>> be better) in the crowd out jeering at me for refusing to consider the
>> matter
>> logically, a priori, from the wording on up. I will therefore close with
>> two
>> arguments that I hope will placate them. First, the doctrine that the
>> rules and
>> the terms in them must be given meaning in accordance with common sense
>> exists
>> to make the game playable. If every typo or invented but undefined term
>> stopped
>> the game, then the game would long since have ended. We have to keep
>> playing,
>> and in order to keep playing, we often need to interpret the rules the
>> way they
>> are intended to be read. The core thesis of the doctrine is that the
>> rules need
>> to have their common sense meaning; using it to rob the rules of what
>> they are
>> plainly intended to mean violates that principle. It would essentially be
>> using
>> the doctrine to violate its own basis for existence.
>>
>> Second, and perhaps most convincingly, the argument that the rules
>> conflict
>> with each other is 

DIS: Idea Dump: RPG Proto, Joint Advertisement/Coordinating with Blognomic, More Thesis Ideas I really want to do

[Cuddle Beam]

I have a big problem of having too many ideas and not enough time to
actually do all of them so just dumping all of my ideas here.

Anyway:

- RPG Proto (going off Kerim's idea):
Dungeonkeepor Office, generates mobs, an amount of players need to fight it
by announcement and surpass the power of the whatever evil thing. Think
Munchkin. Quick, simple, no turns whatsoever.

- Joint Advertisement/Coordinating with Blognomic:
I remember there was a "To Do" list with Advertisement being on one of
them. We're huge (in comparison to other nomics). BlogNomic is huge. What
would be huger? Coordinating efforts. Agora has a unique appeal (Slow, but
ideal for ruminating which is extremely satisfactory), BlogNomic has a
unique appeal (Much more fast-paced and fun in a trampoline and paintball
kind of way, but not fertile for ruminating because of that). Both Nomics.
Think Milk - you have several kinds of Fat content for the client to choose
from. The Coca-Cola Company has got regular coke, fanta, sprite, aquarius,
etc. Same applies to tissue paper, tampons, condoms, eggs, pasta. Brands
have several variants on their product. We can apply the same strategy.

- Thesis ideas: Yeah I know I have that potato one pending, and another in
review, fml, I want to write theses. Thesis about Proposal play (In the
context of self-interest, lulling the audience with justifications for why
the proposal should be done or would be fun, writing subtle loopholes,
etc), Share my "Plays" essay at Blognomic (and finish that, jesus) with
Agora.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3532 judged TRUE

[Cuddle Beam]

"Ghost" Rulesets like the one we have now are disorientating.

Proto:
Merge Assesor and Rulekeepor, and have them publish the new ruleset once a
proposal amending it is enacted.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Judge's arguments for CFJ 3532:
>
> This call for judgment inquires whether the "existing solely" clause
> (hereinafter The Clause) of Rule 2166, which defines assets, prevents
> assets
> referenced by multiple rules from existing. I turn first to the relevant
> text
> of the rule, which is as follows:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>   existence.
>
> Clearly The Clause prevents, say, the sun from being defined as an asset.
> This
> is good, because if the sun could be an asset the rules might make it
> destructible, and then we'd be forced to accept, for game purposes, that
> there
> was no sun. It would be even more problematic if we accepted persons, and
> therefore players, as assets. Obviously the rules are free to make such
> definitions anyway (although we might argue over whether they would have
> any
> effect, considering the interests of the game). However, in the past
> we've allowed contracts to define assets, explaining the necessity of such
> restrictions.
>
> The Clause prevents another class of situations as well. It prevents
> two different rules from defining the same asset. In older forms, it has
> done
> the same for a rule and a contract (CFJs 1922-1923). The question raised
> here is
> whether even referencing an asset would create such a situation. This
> raises
> interesting questions about the way we interpret the rules. It has long
> been
> understood that even if a term used in the rules is undefined, we are
> obliged to
> try our best to figure out what it means. Thus, even without the rule
> defining
> shinies, we would "interpret them into existence". Without shinies, pending
> would be impossible, and we would be unable to pay out salaries, among
> other
> problems. So, it is apparent that we might consider shinies existent even
> without the intervention of their defining rule, arguably triggering The
> Clause.
>
> The historical interpretation of The Clause, however, does not support this
> argument. There are no precedents that clearly apply to this situation,
> although
> in CFJ 3381 the Honorable Judge ais523 appears to assume in passing that
> such
> things are possible. But our current situation is not unprecedented, there
> are
> merely no applicable _judicial_ precedents. Rule 2166 is not a new rule.
> It was,
> in fact, a rather aged rule at time it was repealed, and it only seems new
> to
> us because of its recent reenactment. One example of a similar situation
> is the
> point, which was the general unit of currency under this [1] ruleset. I
> can find
> no record of anyone complaining that they didn't exist.
>
> If we were to ignore history, would we find? Well, the idea that we
> interpret
> terms in the rules in a way that gives them effect is largely a matter of
> tradition. No rule says that, in the absence of a definition from either
> conventional English or the rules, we have to try to interpret the rules
> the way
> they are intended to be read. Another consideration is the interests of the
> game; certainly it would seem to be in the game's best interest to have a
> definition for shinies, and all of the clarifications of their behavior
> that
> come with it.
>
> I know all the Platonists (if that is the right term, perhaps Logicians
> would
> be better) in the crowd out jeering at me for refusing to consider the
> matter
> logically, a priori, from the wording on up. I will therefore close with
> two
> arguments that I hope will placate them. First, the doctrine that the
> rules and
> the terms in them must be given meaning in accordance with common sense
> exists
> to make the game playable. If every typo or invented but undefined term
> stopped
> the game, then the game would long since have ended. We have to keep
> playing,
> and in order to keep playing, we often need to interpret the rules the way
> they
> are intended to be read. The core thesis of the doctrine is that the rules
> need
> to have their common sense meaning; using it to rob the rules of what they
> are
> plainly intended to mean violates that principle. It would essentially be
> using
> the doctrine to violate its own basis for existence.
>
> Second, and perhaps most convincingly, the argument that the rules conflict
> with each other is only valid under circumstances that are themselves
> internally
> inconsistent. If we view the rules Platonically/logically, then only one
> rule
> attempts to define assets. If we consider the rules Pragmatically/legally,
> then
> their common sense intent shines through. It is only when we look at one
> rule
> one way and another rule another way that a 

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ judgement

[Quazie]

 You didn't cite which CFJ so I don't know what you actually did in the
quoted message

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:34 AM V.J Rada  wrote:

> 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: CFJ judgement

[V.J Rada]

I agree I didn't successfully reconsider because I already did so.
However I believe it was not ambiguous, as I am only assigned one CFJ, the
content of which was clearly adressed in the body of the message. This is
pointless quibbling though. If anyone thinks the previous reasoning is
woefully inadequate, there is a Motion to Moot which needs one more
supporter and I reccommend REMAND to replace the second one. If anyone
thinks the second one is still woefully inadequate, support the motion and
vote
REMIT.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Okay, I now get it. But, you still didn’t successfully reconsider because
> it is ambiguous which CFJ this is for, while you don’t need to state the
> number, it needs to be clear and you haven’t even stated the statement.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:43 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > no you're right it can be done once count it as supplementary reasoning.
> although i don't think it needs to say the number as CFJ numbering is
> totally unofficial. I am judging 1 CFJ right now. It's clear which one I
> mean.
> >
> > e attempted to say that auctions were totally unregulated and e could
> call one by anouncement. then he called this cfj and that's what it says.
> THEN he tried to deputize. if i'm wrong i reccommend mooting and judging
> this one as IRRELEVANT because there's a CFJ on the deputization issue.
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:40 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> > no the deputization was a different thing and a different cfj
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for
> auction by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to
> reconsider given that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if
> you could, you never state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this
> is completely ineffective.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ judgement

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Okay, I now get it. But, you still didn’t successfully reconsider because it is 
ambiguous which CFJ this is for, while you don’t need to state the number, it 
needs to be clear and you haven’t even stated the statement.

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



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:43 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> no you're right it can be done once count it as supplementary reasoning. 
> although i don't think it needs to say the number as CFJ numbering is totally 
> unofficial. I am judging 1 CFJ right now. It's clear which one I mean.
> 
> e attempted to say that auctions were totally unregulated and e could call 
> one by anouncement. then he called this cfj and that's what it says. THEN he 
> tried to deputize. if i'm wrong i reccommend mooting and judging this one as 
> IRRELEVANT because there's a CFJ on the deputization issue.
> 
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:40 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> no the deputization was a different thing and a different cfj
> 
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for 
> auction by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to 
> reconsider given that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if 
> you could, you never state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this is 
> completely ineffective.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > 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 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ judgement

[V.J Rada]

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-July/035260.html
 is the message relevant here.

Yeah just count the above as unofficial explanation and also note that I
meant
paragraph four to apply only to auctions of Agora's property, not of that
 belonging to private parties. The previous judgement is still sufficient.


On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:36 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> "a person at a car auction grabbing the item they bought"
>
> seems pretty legit imo.
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>
>> 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: CFJ judgement

[V.J Rada]

no you're right it can be done once count it as supplementary reasoning.
although i don't think it needs to say the number as CFJ numbering is
totally unofficial. I am judging 1 CFJ right now. It's clear which one I
mean.

e attempted to say that auctions were totally unregulated and e could call
one by anouncement. then he called this cfj and that's what it says. THEN
he tried to deputize. if i'm wrong i reccommend mooting and judging this
one as IRRELEVANT because there's a CFJ on the deputization issue.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:40 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> no the deputization was a different thing and a different cfj
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for
>> auction by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to
>> reconsider given that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if
>> you could, you never state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this
>> is completely ineffective.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
>> >
>> > 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: CFJ judgement

[V.J Rada]

no the deputization was a different thing and a different cfj

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for
> auction by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to
> reconsider given that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if
> you could, you never state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this
> is completely ineffective.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ judgement

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

You overlook the major point that he was attempting to put them up for auction 
by deputisation not by announcement. Also, you can't motion to reconsider given 
that a motion to reconsider has already occurred. Even if you could, you never 
state what CFJ this is for, therefore I believe this is completely ineffective.

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



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> 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



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ judgement

[V.J Rada]

"a person at a car auction grabbing the item they bought"

seems pretty legit imo.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:34 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


I just said the exact same with regard to your second point lmao.


Oops. Me and responding as I read... :P

Greetings,
Ørjan.

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

To clarify, I am now using the following peer review process:
The thesis will be open for peer review for 14 days and it must receive at 
least three unique peers’ (they may be persons) reviews. After which, the 
submitter may make revisions and will either resubmit for peer review, 
distribute for informal peer review, submit for a degree, or kill.

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



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> 
>> This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture".
> 
> Hm.  The current thesis process seems to be very loosely described with few 
> "official" parts.  I guess this is still the peer-review stage (which the 
> Herald is supposed to coordinate).
> 
> Anyway, two complaints:  The first is that the quote formatting is all over 
> the place.  The blank lines in the Nomic World rules are not in the original, 
> and otherwise there are a mixture of quote marks (at least one without any).
> 
> The second is that your singular "they" examples are wrong:
> 
>> And such use has remained throughout the years, up to the current year of
>> 2017. However, it's no longer exclusive. Currently, there is both of the
>> use of the singular "they" as well as Spivak (with the latter being much
>> more common in the Ruleset) [8], for example:
>> 
>> Use of "they":
>> 
>> "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons
>> win the game; specifically they win the Round that ends with the indicated
>> win. Agora itself does not end and the ruleset remains unchanged. The
>> Herald is then authorized to award those persons the Patent Title of
>> Champion"
>> 
>> "Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their reports on the
>> World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the address of this copy along with
>> their published reports."
> 
> These are both _plural_ "they"s.  The only _singular_ "they" I can find in 
> the last published ruleset is in Rule 2474:
> 
> Rule 2474/0 (Power=0.5)
> Green Cards
> 
>  A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor,
>  accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.  A Green Card is
>  also appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of
>  Card is appropriate.  When a person is issued a Green Card, they
>  are ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[V.J Rada]

I just said the exact same with regard to your second point lmao.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture".
>>
>
> Hm.  The current thesis process seems to be very loosely described with
> few "official" parts.  I guess this is still the peer-review stage (which
> the Herald is supposed to coordinate).
>
> Anyway, two complaints:  The first is that the quote formatting is all
> over the place.  The blank lines in the Nomic World rules are not in the
> original, and otherwise there are a mixture of quote marks (at least one
> without any).
>
> The second is that your singular "they" examples are wrong:
>
> And such use has remained throughout the years, up to the current year of
>> 2017. However, it's no longer exclusive. Currently, there is both of the
>> use of the singular "they" as well as Spivak (with the latter being much
>> more common in the Ruleset) [8], for example:
>>
>> Use of "they":
>>
>> "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons
>> win the game; specifically they win the Round that ends with the indicated
>> win. Agora itself does not end and the ruleset remains unchanged. The
>> Herald is then authorized to award those persons the Patent Title of
>> Champion"
>>
>> "Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their reports on the
>> World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the address of this copy along
>> with
>> their published reports."
>>
>
> These are both _plural_ "they"s.  The only _singular_ "they" I can find in
> the last published ruleset is in Rule 2474:
>
> Rule 2474/0 (Power=0.5)
> Green Cards
>
>   A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor,
>   accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.  A Green Card is
>   also appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of
>   Card is appropriate.  When a person is issued a Green Card, they
>   are ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:


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


Hm.  The current thesis process seems to be very loosely described with 
few "official" parts.  I guess this is still the peer-review stage (which 
the Herald is supposed to coordinate).


Anyway, two complaints:  The first is that the quote formatting is all 
over the place.  The blank lines in the Nomic World rules are not in the 
original, and otherwise there are a mixture of quote marks (at least one 
without any).


The second is that your singular "they" examples are wrong:


And such use has remained throughout the years, up to the current year of
2017. However, it's no longer exclusive. Currently, there is both of the
use of the singular "they" as well as Spivak (with the latter being much
more common in the Ruleset) [8], for example:

Use of "they":

"When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons
win the game; specifically they win the Round that ends with the indicated
win. Agora itself does not end and the ruleset remains unchanged. The
Herald is then authorized to award those persons the Patent Title of
Champion"

"Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their reports on the
World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the address of this copy along with
their published reports."


These are both _plural_ "they"s.  The only _singular_ "they" I can find in 
the last published ruleset is in Rule 2474:


Rule 2474/0 (Power=0.5)
Green Cards

  A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor,
  accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.  A Green Card is
  also appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of
  Card is appropriate.  When a person is issued a Green Card, they
  are ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: gaelan's rulekeeping agency

[V.J Rada]

gotcha sorry

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 7:17 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Gaelan Is Impatient  (GII)
> Head: Gaelan
> Agents:  All Players
> Powers:  Perform any actions Gaelan has listed as Performable By
>   Agency, subject to any restrictions e has specified in that
>   announcement, if Gaelan has not specified more than 24 hours prior
>   that the action is no longer Performable By Agency.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:12 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> >
> > So I would publish an SLR but I can't exactly find the place where
> Gaelan established a valid agency with the name, the agents etc. Only the
> place where e specified rulekeeping as a power. Can someone find it?
>
>

Re: DIS: gaelan's rulekeeping agency

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Gaelan Is Impatient  (GII)
Head: Gaelan
Agents:  All Players
Powers:  Perform any actions Gaelan has listed as Performable By
  Agency, subject to any restrictions e has specified in that
  announcement, if Gaelan has not specified more than 24 hours prior
  that the action is no longer Performable By Agency.

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



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 2:12 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
> 
> So I would publish an SLR but I can't exactly find the place where Gaelan 
> established a valid agency with the name, the agents etc. Only the place 
> where e specified rulekeeping as a power. Can someone find it?



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: gaelan's rulekeeping agency

[V.J Rada]

So I would publish an SLR but I can't exactly find the place where Gaelan
established a valid agency with the name, the agents etc. Only the place
where e specified rulekeeping as a power. Can someone find it?

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

[V.J Rada]

Your two uses of "they" in our ruleset are both for plural nouns:
"officers" and "persons". The only use of they as a pronoun is in Green
Cards with "whenever a person receives a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to
travel to the United States". Perhaps the next proposal should cursorily
amend this.

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> This is my official submission of my Thesis "Spivak Culture".
>
> I intend to apply for a degree.
>
> humble agoran farmer gettng that edumacation lol.
>
> Let's go!:
>
> ---*---
>
> Spivak is very common in Agora, evidenced by its widespread use throughout
> the current Ruleset and its history.
>
> However, how did these niche pronouns arise to become so prominent in the
> Agoran (and nomic) context?
>
> Additionally, Spivak is discouraged in BlogNomic, the other largest nomic
> currently on the web, via “[Players] may correct obvious spelling and
> typographical mistakes in the Ruleset and their own Pending Proposals at
> any time, including replacing Spivak and gender-specific pronouns with the
> singular “they”.
>
> How have they grown to take opposite approaches to the same problem?
>
> Let’s delve into the history of it, to uncover the roots of these cultures.
>
> ---*---
>
> The game of Nomic was first introduced to the public in the column of
> Metamagical Themas (published in the Scientific American) of Douglas
> Hofstadter, in June 1982, when excerpts from a book (still unpublished at
> the time) by the game's creator Peter Suber were printed and discussed. [1]
>
> Additionally, Douglas Hofstadter has an impassioned chapter in Metamagical
> Themas about gender-neutral language. [1]
>
> In those days, that was what brought people to Nomic, so there has been
> likely a tight relationship between Hofstadter’s writings (the
> gender-neutral language chapter in particular) and the game he revealed
> there as well: Nomic. This is further evidenced by mentions that in Nomic
> World, use of Spivak was a conscious homage to them. [2]
>
> Agora arose from Nomic World, which started on the 9th of October, 1992.
> In its initial Ruleset, it used the conventional singular “they” to refer
> to other people throughout, with no use of Spivak whatsoever [3], for
> example:
>
> “When a Judge has been selected, they shall have 3 days in which to accept
> or refuse their appointment as Judge.”
>
> “Once a Judge is selected, (ie has accepted their selection) they then
> have exactly one week to post an official Judgement on the issue for which
> their Judgement has been invoked.”
>
> However, the Ruleset at the 04 Nov 1992 shows a first (and single)
> evidence of Spivak use [4], here:
>
> "Rule 1047. [mutable] by Blob, last changed Tue Nov  3 13:19:28 1992
>
> New players
>
> New players begin with zero points.
>
> A new player is a player who registers for the first time. If the player
> has
>
> been registered within the past 6 weeks, then e is not counted as a new
>
> player."
>
> Additionally, another single sign of Spivak use emerged on the Ruleset at
> December 11th [5] (Again, by "Blob", suggesting that they might be the
> originator of Spivak use that eventually flowed into Agora).
>
> *Rule 1108. [mutable] by Blob, last changed Fri Dec 11 16:29:23 1992
>
> Playing Tag
>
> ---
>
> I propose the following mutable rule be enacted:
>
> At the passing of this rule, a player is selected at random from all
> recently
>
> active players. The player becomes "it".
>
> At all times thereafter, there must be one and only one player who is
>
> currently "it". This player then has the option of "tagging" another
>
> registered player, who is online and in the same room as "it".
>
> The tagged player then becomes "it" (except as outlined below), and the
> player
>
> who tagged em is no longer "it".
>
> There is no way for any player, other than "it", to know who is "it" at any
>
> given time, until such time as they are tagged by "it".
>
> If "it" tags a player who has been "it" in the past hour, then the tagged
>
> player does not become "it", and the player who was "it" stays that way.
>
> If a player who is "it" is deregistered, another "it" is selected randomly
>
> from all recently active players.
>
> A player who is "it" is to be informed that they are "it" whenever they
> logon
>
> to the game.
>
> However, those are the only registered cases, with all other pronoun use
> being the conventional "they".
>
> Further information about how Agora inherited Spivak can be seen here, via
> the following mention by Chuck Carroll (Agora's Originator) [6]:
>
> "I don't believe I took the idea of using Spivak pronouns in the Initial
> Ruleset  from any other source than Nomic World. Although the use of Spivak
> pronouns may have been sparse within the Nomic World ruleset, I believe
> there were a few players using Spivak as their preferred pronouns within
> Nomic World, and thus Nomic World 

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> CFJs aren't really that powerful. They're guidelines, not legally binding. If 
> the guideline 
> is absurd everyone ignores it.
> 
> On Jul 8, 2017 06:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>   Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and 
> judge it as FALSE.
> What would happen then?
> 
> (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for example, if 
> you think 
> that something should be interpreted one way and me another, if a CFJ to 
> solve it appears
> and it falls in your favor, I would need to act with necessary hypocrisy (I 
> dont have a 
> better word for it, where "behavior that contradicts what one claims to 
> believe or feel")
> and act from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict, 
> due to the
> perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to subject everyone to 
> that hypocrisy
> via (troll, but valid, due to perspectivism, except nobody is the holder of 
> that perspective. 
> And even then, nothing stops people from being dishonest in Judgements 
> anyway, there just
> wouldn't be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll case) 
> CFJs. Although, it
> feels like I shouldn't be able to.)

A weak-CFJ system only works if there's a deeper meta-agreement to accept 
judgements
you don't wholly agree with and get on with the game.  The meta-agreement is 
referred to
in R217's "past judgements" bit.  You don't have to accept truly unreasonable 
judgements
(hence Moots, Reconsideration), but you should accept judgements where you say 
"I would
have made the other decision if I'd been the judge, but it wasn't my turn to 
judge, and
it's a case where reasonable people may differ."

If a judgement that you find unreasonable survives moots, and reconsiderations, 
and
ultimately proposals (because you can always resort to a proposal to fix things,
including retroactive fixes), that means the consensus of other players is 
against you.
If you ultimately can't abide by that (and you think all other players are 
cheating or
being hypocrites by abiding by an unreasonable judgement), quitting the game is 
the only
final remedy!  (proof that we acknowledge and respect that final choice is the 
Cantus
Cygneus).

An example of a set of judgements that split the game (after dueling CFJs 
judged by 
the two different camps) were the ones that found that Partnerships were 
Persons.  It
was a choice between two strongly-conflicting belief sets with similar numbers 
of
proponents, and the CFJ system is (sort of on-purpose) designed to fail so that 
no one
side could impose their choice by fiat - instead it was ultimately settled via a
closely-voted rule change.  I can't remember if anyone *did* quit as a result, 
but I
there were threats, and the proposal was the only fair way to settle it.

-G.

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
> I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won every 
> ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus reasons.

It was the very very first scam ever pulled in Nomic World/Agora. It was
called Lindrum World.  In the very first ruleset, judges had more power to
enforce their judgements, so Lindrum did this very thing for a takeover:
http://www.nomic.net/deadgames/nomicworld/norrish/dictator-lindrum

It's why CFJs are now fairly weak, guidance only.  Now, everyone just 
ignores your arguments and plays as if they weren't delivered, while
using various mechanisms to overturn it.  Example:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1346

But you're right, it can be an issue.  The Arbitor can more subtly choose
friendly judges to return mostly-reasonable but favorable judgements when
e has a conflict of interest.  We used to allow filing cases with a 
back-up officer incase of Arbitor self-interest.  I *think* we might have
intended to do that with Referee but never got around to it this time
(which is why the offices are incompatible).  Here's the old rule, maybe
worth bringing back?

Rule 2023/1 (Power=2)
Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar

   A CFJ may be submitted to the Justiciar.  For such a CFJ, the
   Justiciar shall perform all duties and fulfill all roles that
   would otherwise be assigned to the Clerk of the Courts. This
   takes precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties
   and roles regarding a CFJ to the Clerk of the Courts.

   All persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only
   when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the
   Courts.

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Nicholas Evans]

CFJs aren't really that powerful. They're guidelines, not legally binding.
If the guideline is absurd everyone ignores it.

On Jul 8, 2017 06:25, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge
> it as FALSE.
>
> What would happen then?
>
> (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for example,
> if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me another,
> if a CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would need to
> act with necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it, where
> "behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and act
> from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict, due to
> the perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to subject
> everyone to that hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to perspectivism,
> except nobody is the holder of that perspective. And even then, nothing
> stops people from being dishonest in Judgements anyway, there just wouldn't
> be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll case) CFJs.
> Although, it feels like I shouldn't be able to.)
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
>> >
>> > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won
>> every ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
>> reasons.
>> >
>> > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
>> "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no
>> applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and
>> then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.
>> >
>> > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an
>> absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
>> >
>> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements"
>> and then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.
>> >
>> > ""
>> >
>> > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
>> >
>> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good
>> Forever extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as
>> TRUE! because MORE PANCAKES.
>> >
>> > etc etc etc
>> >
>> > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to
>> enforce any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it
>> away. Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, nvm, those are really hard to trollmode.

"A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified when
it is continuously undoubted for one week." and such

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Ah, I see. I guess the issue would then be what has precedence, CFJs or
> Ratified things. (And if it Ratified things, couldn't you just trollmode
> via those instead?)
>
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> No, because someone else would have become the arbiter already OR the
>> referee issues their report and it self-ratifies.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> >
>> > Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and
>> judge it as FALSE.
>> >
>> > What would happen then?
>> >
>> > (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for
>> example, if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me
>> another, if a CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would
>> need to act with necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it,
>> where "behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and
>> act from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict,
>> due to the perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to
>> subject everyone to that hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to
>> perspectivism, except nobody is the holder of that perspective. And even
>> then, nothing stops people from being dishonest in Judgements anyway, there
>> just wouldn't be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll
>> case) CFJs. Although, it feels like I shouldn't be able to.)
>> >
>> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
>> > 
>> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> > >
>> > > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried
>> before?)
>> > >
>> > > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won
>> every ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
>> reasons.
>> > >
>> > > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
>> "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no
>> applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and
>> then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.
>> > >
>> > > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an
>> absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
>> > >
>> > > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and
>> Judgements" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because
>> PANCAKES.
>> > >
>> > > ""
>> > >
>> > > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
>> > >
>> > > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good
>> Forever extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as
>> TRUE! because MORE PANCAKES.
>> > >
>> > > etc etc etc
>> > >
>> > > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to
>> enforce any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it
>> away. Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, I see. I guess the issue would then be what has precedence, CFJs or
Ratified things. (And if it Ratified things, couldn't you just trollmode
via those instead?)

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> No, because someone else would have become the arbiter already OR the
> referee issues their report and it self-ratifies.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge
> it as FALSE.
> >
> > What would happen then?
> >
> > (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for
> example, if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me
> another, if a CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would
> need to act with necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it,
> where "behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and
> act from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict,
> due to the perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to
> subject everyone to that hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to
> perspectivism, except nobody is the holder of that perspective. And even
> then, nothing stops people from being dishonest in Judgements anyway, there
> just wouldn't be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll
> case) CFJs. Although, it feels like I shouldn't be able to.)
> >
> > On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > >
> > > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
> > >
> > > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won
> every ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
> reasons.
> > >
> > > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
> "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no
> applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and
> then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.
> > >
> > > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an
> absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
> > >
> > > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements"
> and then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.
> > >
> > > ""
> > >
> > > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
> > >
> > > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good
> Forever extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as
> TRUE! because MORE PANCAKES.
> > >
> > > etc etc etc
> > >
> > > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to
> enforce any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it
> away. Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

No, because someone else would have become the arbiter already OR the referee 
issues their report and it self-ratifies.

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



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 7:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge it 
> as FALSE.
> 
> What would happen then?
> 
> (I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for example, if 
> you think that something should be interpreted one way and me another, if a 
> CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would need to act with 
> necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it, where "behavior that 
> contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and act from then on as if 
> the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict, due to the perspectivism 
> there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to subject everyone to that 
> hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to perspectivism, except nobody is the 
> holder of that perspective. And even then, nothing stops people from being 
> dishonest in Judgements anyway, there just wouldn't be any lulling of the 
> audience via rhethoric in the troll case) CFJs. Although, it feels like I 
> shouldn't be able to.)
> 
> On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
>  wrote:
> A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
> >
> > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won every 
> > ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus 
> > reasons.
> >
> > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ 
> > "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no 
> > applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and 
> > then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.
> >
> > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an absurdity 
> > that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
> >
> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements" and 
> > then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.
> >
> > ""
> >
> > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
> >
> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good Forever 
> > extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE! 
> > because MORE PANCAKES.
> >
> > etc etc etc
> >
> > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to enforce 
> > any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it away. 
> > Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Cuddle Beam]

Yes, but the Arbitor could then CFJ "I've gotten Pink Slipped" and judge it
as FALSE.

What would happen then?

(I believe CFJs supercede what people percieve things to be - for example,
if you think that something should be interpreted one way and me another,
if a CFJ to solve it appears and it falls in your favor, I would need to
act with necessary hypocrisy (I dont have a better word for it, where
"behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel") and act
from then on as if the gamestate was according to the CFJ's verdict, due to
the perspectivism there is on Agora's reality. The idea is to subject
everyone to that hypocrisy via (troll, but valid, due to perspectivism,
except nobody is the holder of that perspective. And even then, nothing
stops people from being dishonest in Judgements anyway, there just wouldn't
be any lulling of the audience via rhethoric in the troll case) CFJs.
Although, it feels like I shouldn't be able to.)

On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
> >
> > I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won
> every ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
> reasons.
> >
> > I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
> "There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no
> applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and
> then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.
> >
> > But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an
> absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
> >
> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements"
> and then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.
> >
> > ""
> >
> > "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
> >
> > SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good Forever
> extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE!
> because MORE PANCAKES.
> >
> > etc etc etc
> >
> > Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to enforce
> any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it away.
> Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

A pink slip is issued to you and someone takes your spot.

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



> On Jul 8, 2017, at 6:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)
> 
> I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won every 
> ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus reasons.
> 
> I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ "There 
> is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no applicable 
> cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and then assign it 
> to myself and judge it as TRUE.
> 
> But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an absurdity 
> that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"
> 
> SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements" and 
> then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.
> 
> ""
> 
> "You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"
> 
> SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good Forever 
> extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE! because 
> MORE PANCAKES.
> 
> etc etc etc
> 
> Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to enforce any 
> gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it away. Would be 
> absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

DIS: Trollmode Arbitor

[Cuddle Beam]

What would happen in the following case (and has it been tried before?)

I'm Arbitor for example, and then CFJ "I've achieved victory and won every
ribbon" and then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE, for bogus
reasons.

I'd likely get that challenged and get carded, but what if I then CFJ
"There is no reconsideration/Moot/etc applicable to that CFJ and no
applicable cards, nor have any cards been granted to Cuddlebeam lol" and
then assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE.

But then someone could say, "Yeah, that's silly, what about ' an absurdity
that can be concluded from the assumption that a stateme-'"

SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "There is absurdity in my CFJs and Judgements" and
then I assign it to myself and judge it as FALSE! because PANCAKES.

""

"You're not treating Agora Good Right For-"

SHUSH! I as Arbitor CFJ "Cuddlebeam is treating Agora Right Good Forever
extremely well" and then I assign it to myself and judge it as TRUE!
because MORE PANCAKES.

etc etc etc

Basically use the power that CFJs have to alter the gamestate to enforce
any gamestate you want and if someone tries to stop you - CFJ it away.
Would be absurd, yeah but, CFJ: "is it absurd?"... FALSE.