Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I experienced this same issue in my mail program.

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



> On Jul 29, 2017, at 7:40 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> 
> On 07/29/2017 06:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> My terminal email reader shows no formatting distinction between the new and 
>> old parts of your message. As such, until I read more carefully, I was about 
>> to complain that it was now too late for you to move to reconsideration.
>> 
>> It is possible that the raw html format version contains some kind of 
>> distinction, but trying to make sense of nested  tags with noisy style 
>> attributes in my head is beyond my patience.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
> 
> Thunderbird marked the old text in a different font, but it's far from the 
> normal quote format. I'm not sure what's happened here, but I suspect VJ 
> confused eir client in the editing process.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[Nic Evans]

On 07/29/2017 06:30 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
My terminal email reader shows no formatting distinction between the 
new and old parts of your message. As such, until I read more 
carefully, I was about to complain that it was now too late for you to 
move to reconsideration.


It is possible that the raw html format version contains some kind of 
distinction, but trying to make sense of nested  tags with noisy 
style attributes in my head is beyond my patience.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Thunderbird marked the old text in a different font, but it's far from 
the normal quote format. I'm not sure what's happened here, but I 
suspect VJ confused eir client in the editing process.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[Ørjan Johansen]

My terminal email reader shows no formatting distinction between the new 
and old parts of your message. As such, until I read more carefully, I was 
about to complain that it was now too late for you to move to 
reconsideration.


It is possible that the raw html format version contains some kind of 
distinction, but trying to make sense of nested  tags with noisy 
style attributes in my head is beyond my patience.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:


I have looked again and believe the sequence of events is convoluted
and includes both a failed recusal (sent to A-D) and a failed second
motion to reconsider (you can only file one) but the long and short of
it is that there exists a final judgement which was not mooted (it was
one vote short and based on a misconception that I was supposed to
address the deputization issue). This judgement, which was validly sent
twice to A-B at that time is reproduced below.

The voluminous further discussion of this case served no purpose but
confusion and the below judgement is final, at least as far as I can tell.
This reassignment seems invalid.

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 Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:


On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 22:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:

P.S. Honourable Arbitor, it may have been useful had you spelled out
that this was a moot specifically. We don’t have those often and many
players, myself included, are unfamiliar with them. I nearly forgot
to spell out that I was AFFIRMing the most recent judgement, and
instead nearly passed judgement myself.


It isn't a moot. E motioned to reconsider and then failed to re-judge.
So you do need to actually pass judgement officially.

--
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: New Proposal: "Agoraculture"

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jul 29, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Ajay Kumar Raja  wrote:

> Proposal "Agoraculture":

I’m intensely positive about the bones of this proposal, and hope to see it 
developed into something we can enact. Voting strength is an interesting 
(bordering on dangerous) gameplay element, and this creates novel dynamics 
between it, Estates, and Shinies. It’s noteworthy that the primary issues with 
this proposal are procedural, and not structural.

Very nice work for a first proposal, babelian. Follow nichdel’s advice, or feel 
free to ask for help refining the wording, either on or off-list.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration as a player

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 10:12 -0700, Ajay Kumar Raja wrote:

> I would like to register as a player.

Welcome to Agora!

On Jul 29, 2017, at 1:17 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> Welcome!
> 
> Just as a note, you normally have to be quite precise with your
> language when taking actions in Agora (registration is an exception,
> which is why this (probably) works). Saying that you'd like to do an
> action isn't necessarily the same as actually doing it.


As a necessary consequence of that, it is socially acceptable, and expected, 
that you will be direct when performing an action. It would not have been rude 
or impolite to write “I register as a player,” rather than “I would like to 
register as a player.”

That registration was almost certainly effective anyways, but when it comes 
time to vote on proposals, be blunt and be bold.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration as a player

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 10:12 -0700, Ajay Kumar Raja wrote:
> I would like to register as a player.

Welcome!

Just as a note, you normally have to be quite precise with your
language when taking actions in Agora (registration is an exception,
which is why this (probably) works). Saying that you'd like to do an
action isn't necessarily the same as actually doing it.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[V.J Rada]

I have looked again and believe the sequence of events is convoluted
and includes both a failed recusal (sent to A-D) and a failed second
motion to reconsider (you can only file one) but the long and short of
it is that there exists a final judgement which was not mooted (it was
one vote short and based on a misconception that I was supposed to
address the deputization issue). This judgement, which was validly sent
twice to A-B at that time is reproduced below.

The voluminous further discussion of this case served no purpose but
confusion and the below judgement is final, at least as far as I can tell.
This reassignment seems invalid.

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 Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 22:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > P.S. Honourable Arbitor, it may have been useful had you spelled out
> > that this was a moot specifically. We don’t have those often and many
> > players, myself included, are unfamiliar with them. I nearly forgot
> > to spell out that I was AFFIRMing the most recent judgement, and
> > instead nearly passed judgement myself.
>
> It isn't a moot. E motioned to reconsider and then failed to re-judge.
> So you do need to actually pass judgement officially.
>
> --
> ais523
>

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

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 00:34 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> > Real idea: Ratify the Ruleset every Read the Ruleset Week.
> Seconded.

I like this idea, but it should be a tradition that we do so via
proposal, as opposed to something automatic in the rules.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3537 reassigned to o

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 22:44 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> P.S. Honourable Arbitor, it may have been useful had you spelled out
> that this was a moot specifically. We don’t have those often and many
> players, myself included, are unfamiliar with them. I nearly forgot
> to spell out that I was AFFIRMing the most recent judgement, and
> instead nearly passed judgement myself.

It isn't a moot. E motioned to reconsider and then failed to re-judge.
So you do need to actually pass judgement officially.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Surveyor] [Probably] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-07-28 at 22:29 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> It is no longer possible for me to impose summary judgement on
> Cuddlebeam, as e is presently not a player. I actually do have a good
> argument for why a card would be appropriate, but it’s irrelevant, as
> carding Cuddlebeam now would not be possible under r. 2479 (“Official
> Justice”). Accordingly, the only option before me is to find this
> finger-pointing to be Shenanigans.

You could nonetheless make the argument for the benefit of the Herald's
Fugitives list, which is entirely unofficial. (I'm not 100% sure it
would even apply in this situation, but it sort-of fits.)

-- 
ais523