Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
I would personally argue that a proposal does not need to take effect in
order to simply _describe_ permisibility of an action, and thus this
rule would delegate to all such proposals, even those not yet adopted or
those explicitly voted down.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 8:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
like
that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
game quantities other than winning.
For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by
R106, a
proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions
instantaneously, then
is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
"continue having effect" once its done.
On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was
"except as described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a
proposal that says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by
announcement, expunge any number of Blots from emself." and then have
that wording captured by the Rule?
The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
secured changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
effectively giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the
current Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2
("Blots") [Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots
from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An
indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and
CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
emself, then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule
2577, the Blot CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a
proposal or rule, other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing
the destruction of indestructible assets or that asset in
particular", but rather by the Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
the definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in
Rule 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the
definition, and then later attempts to override the definition in
Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is between two Rules, rather than
within the text of a certain rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
("Precedence between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher
Power takes precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would
mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
will withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on
"indestructible" assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed
not to be relevant. I was unable to find precedent on conflicts
with definitions solely by searching the statements of CFJs.]
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)
i bid 8 coins On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook wrote: > There is one ongoing zombie auction. > > Lots: > 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 2. Corona > 3. Hālian > 4. Tarhalindur > > Bids: > 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins. > 2019-06-08T00:59Z. omd. 10 Coins. > 2019-06-10T08:17Z. twg. 1 Coin. > > The auction was initiated on 2019-06-06 at 23:39 UTC and will end on > 2019-06-13 at 23:39 UTC. > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 02:06, James Cook wrote: > 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins. Oops, I forgot to reformat that. That notation means it was at 17:01 UTC on June 7.
DIS: Re: BUS: Fw: CFJ: Can The Ritual be banished?
It's hard to tell that the rest of your message is quoted. I suspect Yahoo mail interacts badly with the mailing list somehow. Maybe it doesn't format the text version of the email very well. On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 03:36, Rance Bedwell wrote: > > I withdraw the below CFJ. omd has shown me the error of my ways. > > > I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently > possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement: > > "The value of N Agoran Consent currently required to banish The Ritual (Rule > 2596) is indeterminate, because it is not possible to know if The Ritual was > performed in the week that began on May 27." > > > Arguments in support of the CFJ > > If it is not possible to know the number of weeks that the ruleset has been > continuously appeased (value of B per Rule 2596) then it is not possible to > determine the value of N Agoran Consent as defined in Rule 2596. If it is > not possible to know whether The Ritual was performed during the week of May > 27, then it is not possible to determine the value of B. > > I believe it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed because the > rules do not define or limit the scope of what The Ritual is. No player paid > a fee of 7 coins which is the only way to know that The Ritual was performed, > but the failure to pay a fee of 7 coins is not necessarily proof that The > Ritual was not performed since The Ritual is never defined specifically as > "paying a fee of 7 coins". > > Consider a possible rule named "Definition of The Ritual" that reads: "The > Ritual is the posting of a message to a public forum." > > If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it would not in any way conflict > with or modify the meaning of Rule 2596. The clause "Any player CAN perform > The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins." meets the requirements of the > hypothetical "Definition of The Ritual" rule. The paying of 7 coins is a > specific way to perform The Ritual but is not the The Ritual itself. If the > "Definition of The Ritual" rule is then removed that does not change anything > in Rule 2596 so still The Ritual is not equal to or defined as "paying a fee > of 7 coins". The Ritual is something else which at this time is undefined. > > Or, consider a possible rule named "Long Live Agora" that reads: "Any player > CAN perform The Ritual by announcing 'Long live Agora the glorious, long live > Agora the beautiful, long live Agora the magnificent.'" > > If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it also would not conflict with > Rule 2596. It would describe a different way that The Ritual CAN be > performed, but since neither rule specifies how The Ritual MUST be performed > they would not conflict. They would describe two possible ways The Ritual > CAN be performed, but they would not define The Ritual. > > If Rule 2596 specified that The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of 7 > coins, that would then create a defined scope of what The Ritual is or is > not. The "Long Live Agora" rule would lie outside of that scope and would > conflict with the definition. This is another example that supports that The > Ritual is currently undefined. > > If Rule 2596 stated; "Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 > Coins. The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of 7 coins at least once > in every Agoran week..." then The Ritual would be defined and we would know > it was not performed in the week of May 27. Since it is not defined in the > rule, it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed in that week. > This means the value of B and thus also N in Rule 2596 are currently > indeterminate. > > -Rance >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 10:56 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > yes! it is an informal request rather than anything defined by the > rules, i dont know why we say it that way. It used to be a rules-defined action. People kept the phrasing once the rule in question got repealed, and the Arbitor kept honouring the requests anyway even though there was no longer a legal requirement to do so. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
yes! it is an informal request rather than anything defined by the rules, i
dont know why we say it that way.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:55 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I keep hearing this and I don't know what it means. Does
> it mean that you wish to be the Judge?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > i favor this one
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
> like
> >> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated
> -
> >> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> >> game quantities other than winning.
> >>
> >> For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by
> R106, a
> >> proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
> >> then
> >> is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> >> "continue having effect" once its done.
> >>
> >> On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
> >> as
> >>> described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal
> that
> >>> says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
> >> expunge
> >>> any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured
> by
> >> the
> >>> Rule?
> >>>
> >>> The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> >> secured
> >>> changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
> effectively
> >>> giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> >>>
> >>> Jason Cobb
> >>>
> >>> On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Interesting catch.
>
> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual
> phrasing
> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> >> described"
> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> knowledge.
>
> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> >> has
> > neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the
> current
> > Agoran week."
> >
> > Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2
> ("Blots")
> > [Power=2]
> >
> > Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> > restricted to persons.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> > [...]
> > If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots
> from
> > emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> > emself by announcement.
> >
> > Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> >
> > An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> >> announcement,
> > subject to modification by its backing document. An
> >> indestructible
> > asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and
> CANNOT
> >> be
> > destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> > specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
> assets
> > or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >
> >
> > Caller's Arguments
> > ==
> > I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> >> emself,
> > then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the
> Blot
> > CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
> > other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
> > indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
> > Player.
> >
> > I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
> >> the
> > definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
> > 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition,
> and
> > then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
> > conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a
> >> certain
> > rule.
> >
> > If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
> >> ("Precedence
> > between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
> > precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that
> Blots
> > CANNOT be destroyed.
> >
> > I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
> >
> > [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
> >> will
> > withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on
> "indestructible"
> > assets, and the ones that I found on
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
I'm sorry, but I keep hearing this and I don't know what it means. Does
it mean that you wish to be the Judge?
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
game quantities other than winning.
For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by R106, a
proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
then
is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
"continue having effect" once its done.
On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
as
described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal that
says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
expunge
any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured by
the
Rule?
The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
secured
changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively
giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
has
neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
[Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An
indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT
be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
emself,
then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
the
definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and
then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a
certain
rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
("Precedence
between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots
CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
will
withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant.
I
was unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by
searching the statements of CFJs.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> game quantities other than winning.
>
> For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by R106, a
> proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
> then
> is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> "continue having effect" once its done.
>
> On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
> as
> > described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal that
> > says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
> expunge
> > any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured by
> the
> > Rule?
> >
> > The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> secured
> > changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively
> > giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting catch.
> >>
> >> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> >> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> >> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> described"
> >> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> >> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> >> knowledge.
> >>
> >> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> has
> >>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
> >>> Agoran week."
> >>>
> >>> Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
> >>> [Power=2]
> >>>
> >>>Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> >>>restricted to persons.
> >>>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> >>>[...]
> >>>If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
> >>>emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> >>>emself by announcement.
> >>>
> >>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> >>>
> >>>An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> announcement,
> >>>subject to modification by its backing document. An
> indestructible
> >>>asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT
> be
> >>>destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> >>>specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
> >>>or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Caller's Arguments
> >>> ==
> >>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> emself,
> >>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
> >>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
> >>> other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
> >>> indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
> >>> Player.
> >>>
> >>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
> the
> >>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
> >>> 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and
> >>> then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
> >>> conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a
> certain
> >>> rule.
> >>>
> >>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
> ("Precedence
> >>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
> >>> precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots
> >>> CANNOT be destroyed.
> >>>
> >>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
> >>>
> >>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
> will
> >>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
> >>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant.
> I
> >>> was unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by
> >>> searching the statements of CFJs.]
> >>>
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
game quantities other than winning.
For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by R106, a
proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously, then
is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
"continue having effect" once its done.
On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except as
described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal that
says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement, expunge
any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured by the
Rule?
The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do secured
changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively
giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has
neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
[Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself,
then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the
definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and
then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain
rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence
between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots
CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will
withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I
was unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by
searching the statements of CFJs.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
as described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal
that says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
expunge any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording
captured by the Rule?
The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
secured changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
effectively giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the
current Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2
("Blots") [Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An
indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and
CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
emself, then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577,
the Blot CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal
or rule, other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the
destruction of indestructible assets or that asset in particular",
but rather by the Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
the definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in
Rule 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the
definition, and then later attempts to override the definition in
Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is between two Rules, rather than within
the text of a certain rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
("Precedence between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher
Power takes precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would
mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
will withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on
"indestructible" assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed
not to be relevant. I was unable to find precedent on conflicts with
definitions solely by searching the statements of CFJs.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
I think Agora we would be ok with the intuition on this one just in
terms of grammar, except we've given very specific different legal meanings
between a rule doing something and a person doing something as authorized by
a rule, due to our instruments and power system. So there's a CFJ history
(not sure how it started) of distinguishing "a Player CAN do X by
announcement" versus "a Player CAN cause this Rule to do X by announcement"
depending on whether or not a powered instrument is required to make the
change.
On 6/10/2019 12:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes.
It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just
intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be out of
bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds in Agora,
and I'm not sure why that is either.
On Jun 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has neither
gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots") [Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself, then e is the
one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot CANNOT be destroyed, as it was
not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other than [Rule 2577], specifically
addressing the destruction of indestructible assets or that asset in particular",
but rather by the Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the definition of an
asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to
Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus
the conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence between
Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence. In this case
that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will withdraw this. I
didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible" assets, and the ones that
I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was unable to find precedent on conflicts
with definitions solely by searching the statements of CFJs.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes.
It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just
intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be out of
bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds in Agora,
and I'm not sure why that is either.
> On Jun 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Interesting catch.
>
> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> knowledge.
>
>> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has
>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
>> Agoran week."
>> Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
>> [Power=2]
>> Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
>> restricted to persons.
>> [...]
>> To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
>> [...]
>> If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
>> emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
>> emself by announcement.
>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
>> subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
>> asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
>> destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
>> specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
>> or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
>> Caller's Arguments
>> ==
>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself,
>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other
>> than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
>> assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the Player.
>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the
>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555,
>> but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later
>> attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is
>> between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence
>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence.
>> In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be
>> destroyed.
>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will
>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was
>> unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by searching
>> the statements of CFJs.]
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has
neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
[Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself,
then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other
than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the
definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555,
but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later
attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is
between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence
between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence.
In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will
withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was
unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by searching
the statements of CFJs.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Can The Ritual be banished?
This is creative! But performing the ritual is a regulated action, and therefore it can be performed only using methods expressly specified in the rules (per Rule 2125). > On Jun 9, 2019, at 9:22 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > There's no such thing as a Call for *Justice*. :) > > Jason Cobb > >> On 6/9/19 7:49 PM, Rance Bedwell wrote: >> I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently >> possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement: >> >> "The value of N Agoran Consent currently required to banish The Ritual (Rule >> 2596) is indeterminate, because it is not possible to know if The Ritual was >> performed in the week that began on May 27." >> >> >> Arguments in support of the CFJ >> >> If it is not possible to know the number of weeks that the ruleset has been >> continuously appeased (value of B per Rule 2596) then it is not possible to >> determine the value of N Agoran Consent as defined in Rule 2596. If it is >> not possible to know whether The Ritual was performed during the week of May >> 27, then it is not possible to determine the value of B. >> >> I believe it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed because the >> rules do not define or limit the scope of what The Ritual is. No player >> paid a fee of 7 coins which is the only way to know that The Ritual was >> performed, but the failure to pay a fee of 7 coins is not necessarily proof >> that The Ritual was not performed since The Ritual is never defined >> specifically as "paying a fee of 7 coins". >> >> Consider a possible rule named "Definition of The Ritual" that reads: "The >> Ritual is the posting of a message to a public forum." >> >> If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it would not in any way conflict >> with or modify the meaning of Rule 2596. The clause "Any player CAN perform >> The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins." meets the requirements of the >> hypothetical "Definition of The Ritual" rule. The paying of 7 coins is a >> specific way to perform The Ritual but is not the The Ritual itself. If the >> "Definition of The Ritual" rule is then removed that does not change >> anything in Rule 2596 so still The Ritual is not equal to or defined as >> "paying a fee of 7 coins". The Ritual is something else which at this time >> is undefined. >> >> Or, consider a possible rule named "Long Live Agora" that reads: "Any >> player CAN perform The Ritual by announcing 'Long live Agora the glorious, >> long live Agora the beautiful, long live Agora the magnificent.'" >> >> If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it also would not conflict with >> Rule 2596. It would describe a different way that The Ritual CAN be >> performed, but since neither rule specifies how The Ritual MUST be performed >> they would not conflict. They would describe two possible ways The Ritual >> CAN be performed, but they would not define The Ritual. >> >> If Rule 2596 specified that The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of >> 7 coins, that would then create a defined scope of what The Ritual is or is >> not. The "Long Live Agora" rule would lie outside of that scope and would >> conflict with the definition. This is another example that supports that >> The Ritual is currently undefined. >> >> If Rule 2596 stated; "Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 >> Coins. The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of 7 coins at least once >> in every Agoran week..." then The Ritual would be defined and we would know >> it was not performed in the week of May 27. Since it is not defined in the >> rule, it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed in that week. >> This means the value of B and thus also N in Rule 2596 are currently >> indeterminate. >> >> -Rance >>
