Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Report

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 21:58 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 21:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >> COE: I do believe you awarded me a Magenta one (with ~95 minutes
> to 
> >> spare).
> >
> > I did. (Although I had a week to do so; the acknowledgement of the
> > Birthday has to happen on the Birthday, the Ribbon can be a bit
> > delayed.) Admitted, corrected report coming soon.
> 
> AFAICT, Magenta Ribbons are not earned, only qualified for, so they
> have to be awarded during the Birthday itself.

Oh, you seem to be right. In that case, it's a good thing I awarded it
on time!

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Alex Smith wrote:


On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 21:24 +0200, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

COE: I do believe you awarded me a Magenta one (with ~95 minutes to 
spare).


I did. (Although I had a week to do so; the acknowledgement of the
Birthday has to happen on the Birthday, the Ribbon can be a bit
delayed.) Admitted, corrected report coming soon.


AFAICT, Magenta Ribbons are not earned, only qualified for, so they have 
to be awarded during the Birthday itself.


Greetings,
Ørjan, dodging bullets.

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

[Ørjan Johansen]

NttPF.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


I move reconsideration.

I recuse myself.

On Thursday, July 6, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:


TTttPF

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




On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:16 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <

p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com > wrote:


I move to enter this judgement into moot.

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




On Jul 5, 2017, at 4:35 PM, V.J Rada >

wrote:


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

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, V.J Rada > wrote:

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

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

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

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


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam > wrote:

I motion to reconsider.

Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not shouldn't

affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first place, I
believe.


On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada > wrote:

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

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

On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith > wrote:

On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:

The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's Auction
time. Let's go:

Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm

going

off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation

for the

Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under

which

the action would succeed or fail":

"At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction,

by

announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins."

Additionally, the state of being in an auction or not is tracked by

nobody,

so it doesn't infringe "would, as part of its effect, modify

information

for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor"

Therefore:

- I put every Estate up for Auction, (even those owned by other

players, if

possible).
- I then bid a million shinies on each of them.
- I then bid one shiny on each of them.

I have absolutely no defense towards other people bidding more than a
million and using my own "scam" to win auctions, which only works

versus

the "conventional" way of winning them by bidding amounts of cash you
actually 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: yeah sure

[Quazie]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:13 AM grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 09:12 grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> back in
> >>
> >>
> >> -grok
> >
> >
> > Welcome back
>
> thumbs up emoji clap emoji clap emoji
>
>
> -grok
>

Thank you for not making that your nickname.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Cuddle Beam]

I am grateful and flattered for your attention given to this Judgement, I
believe discussion like this makes for great gameplay.

Anyway, onto it:

I present the following as counterargument to the argument that "start of
the month" should be an instant or "only one point each month" instead of a
period of time.

R1023 "A requirement to perform an action at an exact instant (e.g. "when
X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a
requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant."

I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and be
acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where the
intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt becoming
a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever", but it was allowed
to happen, without these 'Judge Interventions'. I don't believe 'Judge
Intervention' should apply to supersede the lack of other arguments to
prevent my scam (or any other "scam", really).

To put it more poetically: Rules can be flawed. *We* are flawed - but we
*grow* via finding flaws and using them as opportunities to learn, fix and
correct our nomic and understanding to become even stronger next time. I
myself am very flawed, but I deeply appreciate the feedback I get regarding
my flaws, because I can use them to grow - this scam is evidence of that!
Before my scam had many more holes, but now it has strengthened to deserved
a huge wall of text via embracing my flaws and the help to surpass them.
That is definitely something, that is *growth* which I have acquired.

Turning a blind eye to our own errors and needing to resort to dishonesty
in Judgement to protect the ideal that the Rules "should work" even when
they don't stunts our growth as people. As a nomic I believe we should
moves forwards and gathers more intellectual wealth, to become an example
for all other nomics, not hide behind catchphrases to just protect the
would-be ego of Agora.



On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy
> it up
> > a bit so that things are more clear:
> >
> > Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
> >
> > There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most
> recent
> > version of my scam goes like this:
> >
> > ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one
> > Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
> > auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins.".
> > During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just the first
> > Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is still true.
> > There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the Surveyor put
> the
> > first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put up yet another
> > Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more Estates, during
> > the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I deputized
> for,
> > from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because it has
> "expired
> > more than fourteen days ago".
>
> I submit the following as a (responsive) gratuitous argument:
>
> First, background. Let's look at the text of the rule:
>
> "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one estate, the
> Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
> auction..."
>
> And let's look at the loop Cuddlebeam suspects exists, and tries to
> use as evidence for eir deuptization:
>
> 1. Agora checks for Estates owned by Agora.
> 2. At least one Estate is owned by Agora. In fact, five are!
> 3. The Surveyor is required to put one Estate up for auction.
> 4. o correctly puts an Estate up for auction, as required.
> 5. Agora checks for Estates owned by Agora.
> 6. At least one Estate is owned by Agora. In fact, four are!
> 7. The Surveyor must put an Estate up for auction, and continue until
> all Estates are up for auction.
>
> I will argue that part 5 of this postulated loop does not happen,
> preventing further events. Additionally, I believe part 6 of this
> postulated loop is fulfilled by part 4. If either of those arguments
> are TRUE, Part 7 (which represents the rest of the loop) never occurs.
> I will also provide arguments why, even arguments against parts 5 and
> 6 of the loop never happen, the Judge should still intervene and vote
> TRUE to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> On part 5 of the loop: I am reasonably convinced that Agora does not
> check the number of Estates owned by Agora more than once.
>
> The first clause of 2491 specifically uses the language "At the start
> of each month." Cuddlebeam's arguments conspicuously leave out the
> word "At," which I believe is a key word. "At" implies that the
> specific mechanism that causes an Estate to come to auction 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: yeah sure

[grok (caleb vines)]

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 09:12 grok (caleb vines)  wrote:
>>
>> back in
>>
>>
>> -grok
>
>
> Welcome back

thumbs up emoji clap emoji clap emoji


-grok

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Cuddle Beam]

R2160: "(...) 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the
aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to
deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action."

"(iii) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular
action." <- Not this.

"(ii) the aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago" <-
This.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> You never depitized. You have to announce intent to depitize for occupied
> offices.
>
> On Jul 6, 2017 06:11, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>
>> This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
>> up a bit so that things are more clear:
>>
>> Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
>>
>> There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most
>> recent version of my scam goes like this:
>>
>> ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
>> one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up
>> for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
>> begins.". During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just
>> the first Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is
>> still true. There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the
>> Surveyor put the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put
>> up yet another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
>> Estates, during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
>> deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
>> it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
>>
>> ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here: http://www.mail-archive.
>> com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
>>
>> ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
>> that I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
>> wrong and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via
>> normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
>> office.". I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the
>> Surveyor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>>>
>>> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
>>> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Nicholas Evans]

You never depitized. You have to announce intent to depitize for occupied
offices.

On Jul 6, 2017 06:11, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
> up a bit so that things are more clear:
>
> Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
>
> There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent
> version of my scam goes like this:
>
> ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up
> for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
> begins.". During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just
> the first Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is
> still true. There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the
> Surveyor put the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put
> up yet another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
> Estates, during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
> deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
> it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
>
> ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here: http://www.mail-archive.
> com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
>
> ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
> that I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
> wrong and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via
> normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
> office.". I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the
> Surveyor.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>>
>> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
>> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3539 assigned to Murphy

[V.J Rada]

I recommend that you also assign the auction CFJ that was assigned to me to
murphy

On Thursday, July 6, 2017, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 13:11 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>
> This is CFJ 3539. I assign it to Murphy.
>
> > > This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
> > > controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
> >
> > This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help
> > tidy it up a bit so that things are more clear:
> >
> > Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
> >
> > There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most
> recent
> > version of my scam goes like this:
> >
> > ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one
> > Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
> > auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins.".
> > During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just the first
> > Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is still true.
> > There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the Surveyor put
> > the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put up yet
> > another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
> Estates,
> > during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
> > deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
> > it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
> >
> > ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
> >
> > ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
> that
> > I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
> wrong
> > and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via normal
> > deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
> office.".
> > I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the Surveyor.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Cuddle Beam]

This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
up a bit so that things are more clear:

Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:

There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent
version of my scam goes like this:

▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins.".
During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just the first
Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is still true.
There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the Surveyor put
the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put up yet
another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more Estates,
during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".

▪ I did the deputization and auctions here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html

▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and that
I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm wrong
and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via normal
deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office.".
I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the Surveyor.




On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>
> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”

This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?

-- 
ais523

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

[V.J Rada]

I'm recused now, the judgement doesn't count. I refused because I'm on
mobile and don't really want to deal with the linked deputization issue. I
recommend both cfjs be assigned to the same person. I arbitrarily recommend
quazie.

The point PSS raised doesn't matter though. In a car auction, the
auctioneers have to give you the car. The auction still leads to the sale.
In CB'S auction, there can be no sale or expectation of a sale. I would
really like the next judgement to track this 9ne, if a little more lucidly.

On Thursday, July 6, 2017, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I mean I support the moot. Sorry.
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
>
>> I move reconsideration too.
>>
>> I also point my nose at VJ Rada and wiggle it for the crime of breaking
>> his pledgerino.
>>
>> So many crimes going on lol - y'all goddamn criminals, the lot of you.
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:53 AM, V.J Rada > > wrote:
>>
>>> I move reconsideration.
>>>
>>> I recuse myself.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, July 6, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
 TTttPF
 
 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



 > On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:16 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
 p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
 >
 > I move to enter this judgement into moot.
 > 
 > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
 >
 >
 >
 >> On Jul 5, 2017, at 4:35 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
 >>
 >> This contains my motion to reconsider and my
 >> adressing your argument (although cursorily)
 >>
 >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, V.J Rada  wrote:
 >> I move to reconsider (you can't, you cndan intend to move
 >> and wait for two support.
 >>
 >> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
 >> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
 >> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
 >> provisions, people could auction their own property
 >> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
 >> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
 >> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
 >> does not work.
 >>
 >> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
 >> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
 >> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
 >> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
 >> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
 >> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
 >> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
 >> by rule (such as the auction provision).
 >>
 >> CB raises the additional argument that an auction still can be
 >> called even if the winner cannot have the property transferred
 >> to them. Auction is undefined. The ordinary meaning is
 >> "a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest
 >> bidder.". A sale cannot exist unless the property is actually
 >> given to the winner of the auction. I have already explained that
 >> this cannot happen. Therefore, an auction has not been called
 >> here.
 >>
 >>
 >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam 
 wrote:
 >> I motion to reconsider.
 >>
 >> Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not
 shouldn't affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first
 place, I believe.
 >>
 >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada 
 wrote:
 >> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
 >> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
 >> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
 >> provisions, people could auction their own property
 >> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
 >> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
 >> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
 >> does not work.
 >>
 >> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
 >> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
 >> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
 >> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
 >> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
 >> property, precludes anyone from taking an 

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

[V.J Rada]

I move reconsideration.

I recuse myself.

On Thursday, July 6, 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> TTttPF
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com 
>
>
>
> > On Jul 5, 2017, at 5:16 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com > wrote:
> >
> > I move to enter this judgement into moot.
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com 
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Jul 5, 2017, at 4:35 PM, V.J Rada >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> This contains my motion to reconsider and my
> >> adressing your argument (although cursorily)
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 6:42 PM, V.J Rada  > wrote:
> >> I move to reconsider (you can't, you cndan intend to move
> >> and wait for two support.
> >>
> >> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
> >> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
> >> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
> >> provisions, people could auction their own property
> >> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
> >> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
> >> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
> >> does not work.
> >>
> >> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
> >> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
> >> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
> >> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
> >> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
> >> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
> >> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
> >> by rule (such as the auction provision).
> >>
> >> CB raises the additional argument that an auction still can be
> >> called even if the winner cannot have the property transferred
> >> to them. Auction is undefined. The ordinary meaning is
> >> "a public sale in which goods or property are sold to the highest
> >> bidder.". A sale cannot exist unless the property is actually
> >> given to the winner of the auction. I have already explained that
> >> this cannot happen. Therefore, an auction has not been called
> >> here.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 5:34 PM, Cuddle Beam  > wrote:
> >> I motion to reconsider.
> >>
> >> Whether the winning bid can actually make a transfer or not shouldn't
> affect if there is actually an *auction* or not in the first place, I
> believe.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:14 AM, V.J Rada  > wrote:
> >> I'm judging this FALSE. GASP! Surprise rocks the nation.
> >> I'm not judging it FALSE because auctioning is a regulated
> >> action though. It seems to me that despite the auction
> >> provisions, people could auction their own property
> >> without breaching the rules. I'm judging it based on the fact
> >> that Estate ownership is regulated, and CB's attempt to auction
> >> off Estates owned by another entity (Agora) and person (Josh)
> >> does not work.
> >>
> >> "A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any
> >> player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement"
> >> from rule 2489 regulates Estate ownership, as does the auction
> >> provision. This, mixed with the fact that the ordinary meaning of
> >> the word "Owner" means someone who can control their
> >> property, precludes anyone from taking an Estate from its owner
> >> or causing it to be taken from em, unless specifically authorized
> >> by rule (such as the auction provision).
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 12:12 AM, Alex Smith  > wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2017-07-02 at 02:21 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
> >>> The moment is ripe to attempt something like this, because it's Auction
> >>> time. Let's go:
> >>>
> >>> Putting Estates up to Auction is an unregulated action, much like
> >>> withdrawing. (I don't personally believe this - because I believe all
> >>> actions in the universe are Regulated - but many others do, so I'm
> going
> >>> off that). In case its of doubt, the following states an obligation
> for the
> >>> Surveyor to perform, so its not a description of "circumstances under
> which
> >>> the action would succeed or fail":
> >>>
> >>> "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
> >>> Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction,
> by
> >>> announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins."
> >>>
> >>> Additionally, the state of being in an auction or not is tracked by
> nobody,
> >>> so it doesn't infringe "would, as part of its effect, modify
> information
> >>> for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor"
> >>>
> >>> Therefore:
> >>>
> >>> - 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gets ribbons and holds auctions

[Cuddle Beam]

I agree but wouldn't it be well past 7 days after last month's "start of
the month" (June, not the current month, July)?

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > I actually attempted to deputize you for *last months* negligence as
> well,
> > because "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate,
> the
> > Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction, by
> > announcement." is still true 'at the start of the month' even if you've
> put
> > an Estate up for Auction already. And then again and again, until all
> > Estates are auctioned.
>
> Ahh, but you're missing this lovely little construction clause in Rule
> 1023:  'The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days". This
> time period is set when the requirement is created (i.e. X days before
> the limit ends). A requirement to perform an action at an exact
> instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is
> instead interpreted as a requirement to perform that action in a
> timely fashion after that instant.'
>
> > YOU'VE BEEN NEGLIGNT, DUN DUN DUUUN! Deserves a card? Not really imo
> > lol. It's just a bit of a loophole.
> >
>
> Please, please, please stop the with caps. It makes my metaphorical
> ears metaphorically ring.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gets ribbons and holds auctions

[Aris Merchant]

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I actually attempted to deputize you for *last months* negligence as well,
> because "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
> Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction, by
> announcement." is still true 'at the start of the month' even if you've put
> an Estate up for Auction already. And then again and again, until all
> Estates are auctioned.

Ahh, but you're missing this lovely little construction clause in Rule
1023:  'The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days". This
time period is set when the requirement is created (i.e. X days before
the limit ends). A requirement to perform an action at an exact
instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is
instead interpreted as a requirement to perform that action in a
timely fashion after that instant.'

> YOU'VE BEEN NEGLIGNT, DUN DUN DUUUN! Deserves a card? Not really imo
> lol. It's just a bit of a loophole.
>

Please, please, please stop the with caps. It makes my metaphorical
ears metaphorically ring.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gets ribbons and holds auctions

[Cuddle Beam]

I actually attempted to deputize you for *last months* negligence as well,
because "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the
Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction, by
announcement." is still true 'at the start of the month' even if you've put
an Estate up for Auction already. And then again and again, until all
Estates are auctioned.

YOU'VE BEEN NEGLIGNT, DUN DUN DUUUN! Deserves a card? Not really imo
lol. It's just a bit of a loophole.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 7:56 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Jul 4, 2017, at 9:07 AM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
>
> > I deputize for the role of Surveyor and put Cagliostro up for Auction.
> (Arguably, its past the "start of the month”.)
>
> I skimmed the ensuing thread. I’m honestly in no position to tell whether
> your attempt to deputize succeeded. I’m less than seven days late
> performing the action personally, but now I’m uncertain enough as to the
> state of things to want to barge ahead with a condtional attempt to auction
> as per my plan, followed by a CFJ to clarify which of us is in the right.
>
> -o
>
>

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

[Owen Jacobson]

I vote as follows:

> ID  Author(s)AI   Title   Pender Pend fee 
> (sh.)
> ---
> 7865*   Aris, o, [1] 3.1  Regulations v4  Aris   6

FOR.

> 7866*   o, Quazie, [2]   1.7  More Betterer Pledges   o  6

Already noted to have been in error.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP