Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

[Aris Merchant]

I'm happy to! My platform was that I was working to resolve the
inactivity crisis of the time [1]. It's less of a crisis now (though
more offices than usual are still empty), partially because of my
work. I sent the message I linked, and I've also taken on the duties
of the Arbitor as I said I would. G. on the other hand resigned from
all of eir offices, making the crisis worse. I'm not blaming em for
needing time off, just suggesting that I'm currently the better
candidate.

[1] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-April/053804.html

-Aris

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 8:09 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> My vote is still up for grabs, if I'm eligible (which I think I am).
> Sorry again, but I am too new to know everything you would wish to
> include in your platform. Could you give me a short summary so that I
> don't have to trawl through lots of messages?
>
> On 6/2/19 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I vote [Aris, G.].
> >
> > Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger
> > platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active.
> > I’m really confused, TBH.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> >> In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].
> >>
> >> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux  wrote:
> >>> I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime
> >> Minister (for reals this time).
> >>> The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris.
> >>>
> >>> The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff.
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley 
> >> wrote:
>  JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID
>  ===
> 
>  Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments,
> >> I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE.
> > On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and
> >> not an interested party).
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >> From: D Margaux 
> >> Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT
> >> To: Agora Business 
> >> Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
> >>
> >> I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor
> >> is an interested party), the following statement:  “The ADoP did not
> >> EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19
> >> May 2019.”
> >> Caller’s Arguments:
> >>
> >> Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid”
> >> unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.”  On 19 May
> >> 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for
> >> Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid
> >> options as required by rule.  Therefore no PM election was commenced.
> >> In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are
> >> the candidates (G. and Corona).”  That did not clearly state the valid
> >> options because Aris was also a candidate.
> >> In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a
> >> candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then
> >> I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).”  That
> >> message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only
> >> that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally,
> >> that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being
> >> invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation
> >> would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by
> >> message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options”
> >> were.  In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear
> >> description of the valid options.”
> >> Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both
> >> messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.
> >> ——
> >> [1]
> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html
> >> [2]
> >> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
>  --
>  Trigon
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[James Cook]

After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the
replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying
prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and
forward.

Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely:

> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> It is not unusual to infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the
> rules never directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A
> Call for Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they
> are associated with statements, can be judged, etc. I believe this is
> supported by Rule 217's instruction to use common sense.
>
> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> concept of ratification:
>
> Rule 1551 says:
>
> > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
> > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
>
> Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of
> several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the
> number of voters indicated", etc.
>
> In both cases, the rules talk about ratifying facts about the past.
> Ratification involves a hypothetical gamestate minimally modified to
> make these facts about the past true, which clarifies for us that the
> definition of gamestate includes facts about the past. It also seems
> likely that the new gamestate after the ratification is intended to
> include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at
> the same clarification.


On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:24, James Cook  wrote:
>
> Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:
>
> > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
> >
> > Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using
> > anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us
> > augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to
> > infer meanings of terms in this way.  For example, the rules never
> > directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for
> > Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are
> > associated with statements, can be judged, etc.
> >
> > In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> > gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> > concept of ratification:
>
> I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to
> be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger
> argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about
> properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the
> definition.
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> >
> > The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
> > this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> > > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
> > >
> > > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> > >
> > > You write in 7A:
> > > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> > >
> > > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> > > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> > > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> > >
> > > Jason Cobb
> > > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > the next couple of days.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > >
> > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[James Cook]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> IMO the biggest reason is that it makes it clear what situations cause
> the rule to be outpowered (i.e. if it tries to change something in the
> present that can't be changed, even if it could have been legally
> changed under thhe past ruleset at the time).

Ah, that's another good reason. (I didn't get to your message before
answering Walker's message.)

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[James Cook]

Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:

> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using
> anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us
> augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to
> infer meanings of terms in this way.  For example, the rules never
> directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for
> Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are
> associated with statements, can be judged, etc.
>
> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> concept of ratification:

I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to
be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger
argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about
properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the
definition.

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
> this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
>
> -Aris
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
> >
> > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> >
> > You write in 7A:
> > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> >
> > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > >
> > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > the next couple of days.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > >
> > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> > >
> > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > more than 0 blots."
> > >
> > > 1. Arguments
> > > 
> > >
> > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > everything here.
> > >
> > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > =
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > >
> > >The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > >blots.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > >
> > >D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > >it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > >
> > >{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > >have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > >
> > >Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > >Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > >
> > >There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > >Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > >the Spaaace Rules. }
> > >
> > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > >
> > >D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > >weekly reports:
> > >
> > >{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > >recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > >switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > >value.}
> > >
> > >{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > >recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > >switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> > >
> > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > >
> > >omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > >information in the above reports.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > >
> > >D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > >behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > >pointed".
> > >
> > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > >
> > >Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impo

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Aris Merchant]

The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.

-Aris



On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
>
> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
>
> You write in 7A:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
>
> This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
>
> Jason Cobb
> On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > 
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> > 
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> >The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> >blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> >D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> >it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> >{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> >have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> >Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> >Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> >There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> >Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> >the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> >D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> >weekly reports:
> >
> >{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> >recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> >switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> >value.}
> >
> >{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> >recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> >switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> >omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> >information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> >D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> >behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> >pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> >Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> >Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> >> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the
> >> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> >> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> >> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> >> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> of the
> >> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
> >> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
> >> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> >>
> >> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> D.
> >> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> required
> >> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> >> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> >D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> >ratify.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> >D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
> >Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> >
> > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > =

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

[Jason Cobb]

My vote is still up for grabs, if I'm eligible (which I think I am). 
Sorry again, but I am too new to know everything you would wish to 
include in your platform. Could you give me a short summary so that I 
don't have to trawl through lots of messages?


On 6/2/19 10:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I vote [Aris, G.].

Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger
platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active.
I’m really confused, TBH.

-Aris

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook  wrote:


In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux  wrote:

I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime

Minister (for reals this time).

The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris.

The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff.



On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley 

wrote:

JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID
===

Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments,

I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE.

On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and

not an interested party).

Begin forwarded message:

From: D Margaux 
Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT
To: Agora Business 
Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election

I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor

is an interested party), the following statement:  “The ADoP did not
EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19
May 2019.”

Caller’s Arguments:

Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid”

unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.”  On 19 May
2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for
Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid
options as required by rule.  Therefore no PM election was commenced.

In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are

the candidates (G. and Corona).”  That did not clearly state the valid
options because Aris was also a candidate.

In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a

candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then
I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).”  That
message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only
that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally,
that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being
invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation
would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by
message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options”
were.  In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear
description of the valid options.”

Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both

messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.

——
[1]

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html

[2]

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html

--
Trigon


--
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[James Cook]

> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
play out.

If *only* the record-of-the-past part of the gamestate were changed,
maybe the consequences would not be changed, e.g. D. Margaux would
still have blots, even though now e was never fined.

> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
> otherwise via legal fiction?
> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
> ratification.

I think these are strong reasons. The past-not-included interpretation
feels nicer and more obvious to me, and I tried to capture some of
that feeling in Section 6. But I currently feel that the other
arguments outweigh this, no matter how indignant I feel about my prior
intuition being wrong.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[James Cook]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell  wrote:
> If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE.

That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for
you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm
not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm.

I'm wondering if I should withdraw my CFJ if we're all in agreement
about it. On the one hand, it would save the work of a judge; on the
other, if it's really so trivial, it shouldn't take much work to
judge. I'll leave it out there unless people think I should withdraw.

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Jason Cobb]

[Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]

I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.

You write in 7A:
"In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."

This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
"Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using 
direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be 
concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined 
concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."


Jason Cobb
On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:

Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.

I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.



This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.

CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."

CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."

1. Arguments


There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
everything here.

2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=

2019-05-20 01:25

   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
   blots.

2019-05-20 20:32

   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":

   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.

   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
   Spaaace Rules has its default value.

   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
   the Spaaace Rules. }

2019-05-21 10:20

   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
   weekly reports:

   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
   value.}

   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}

2019-05-25 22:02

   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
   information in the above reports.

2019-05-25 22:54

   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
   pointed".

2019-05-26 22:43

   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:

   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
   >
   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.

2019-05-26 22:50

   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
   ratify.

2019-05-27 14:11

   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.

2019-05-27 19:58

   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.

3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
==

It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.

I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
INEFFECTIVE if...").

Condition 1 of Rule 2531:

The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

[James Cook]

I don't feel strongly either way. I think both you and G. are good
choices as PM, having a strong understanding of the game and
willingness to step up and help keep things moving. I think you've
done more recently, but I'm not sure how much recency should count, if
G.'s still fairly active. For this election attempt in particular, I'm
just repeating what I did on the last attempt to try to be consistent
and not have the result change just because of the confusion.

I hope I didn't confuse people by voting to "endorse G." on the last
election attempt. I did it because I wasn't sure if G. still wanted
it, but it might have been interpreted as "I don't know what's going
on; to be safe I'll let G. figure it out".

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:35, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> I vote [Aris, G.].
>
> Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger
> platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active.
> I’m really confused, TBH.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux  wrote:
> > >
> > > I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime
> > Minister (for reals this time).
> > >
> > > The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris.
> > >
> > > The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID
> > > > ===
> > > >
> > > > Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments,
> > I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE.
> > > >
> > > >> On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > >> I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and
> > not an interested party).
> > > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > > >>> From: D Margaux 
> > > >>> Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT
> > > >>> To: Agora Business 
> > > >>> Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor
> > is an interested party), the following statement:  “The ADoP did not
> > EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19
> > May 2019.”
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Caller’s Arguments:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid”
> > unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.”  On 19 May
> > 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for
> > Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid
> > options as required by rule.  Therefore no PM election was commenced.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are
> > the candidates (G. and Corona).”  That did not clearly state the valid
> > options because Aris was also a candidate.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a
> > candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then
> > I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).”  That
> > message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only
> > that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally,
> > that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being
> > invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation
> > would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by
> > message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options”
> > were.  In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear
> > description of the valid options.”
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both
> > messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ——
> > > >>> [1]
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html
> > > >>>
> > > >>> [2]
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
> > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Trigon
> >

DIS: Re: BUS: Whoops

[Jason Cobb]

Well, this should be fun :)

On 6/2/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote:

I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order:

 omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg,
D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb,
Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior,
Baron von Vaderham

for failing to perform The Ritual in the previous Agoran week.

Explanation for how each player P violated the rules:
* Rule 2596 required The Ritual to be performed.
* P had a method available to perform The Ritual. Therefore P is
responsible if The Ritual was not performed.

(I had honestly intended to perform it at the last minute once again
this week, but forgot. I intended to do this because I try to follow
the rules. Though, honestly, I'm happy that we finally missed a week
so that we get to see what happens.)


--
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

[Aris Merchant]

I vote [Aris, G.].

Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger
platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active.
I’m really confused, TBH.

-Aris

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook  wrote:

> In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris].
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux  wrote:
> >
> > I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime
> Minister (for reals this time).
> >
> > The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris.
> >
> > The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff.
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments,
> I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE.
> > >
> > >> On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > >> I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and
> not an interested party).
> > >> Begin forwarded message:
> > >>> From: D Margaux 
> > >>> Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT
> > >>> To: Agora Business 
> > >>> Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election
> > >>>
> > >>> I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor
> is an interested party), the following statement:  “The ADoP did not
> EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19
> May 2019.”
> > >>>
> > >>> Caller’s Arguments:
> > >>>
> > >>> Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid”
> unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.”  On 19 May
> 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for
> Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid
> options as required by rule.  Therefore no PM election was commenced.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are
> the candidates (G. and Corona).”  That did not clearly state the valid
> options because Aris was also a candidate.
> > >>>
> > >>> In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a
> candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then
> I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).”  That
> message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only
> that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally,
> that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being
> invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation
> would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by
> message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options”
> were.  In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear
> description of the valid options.”
> > >>>
> > >>> Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both
> messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104.
> > >>>
> > >>> ——
> > >>> [1]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html
> > >>>
> > >>> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html
> > >>>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trigon
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

[James Cook]

Oops, I guess that was cc-ed to BUS the first time anyway.

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:21, James Cook  wrote:
>
> This Time To The Public Forum:
>
> Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if
> you prefer to be referred to some other way.
>
> I grant a welcome package to Walker.
>
> > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker  
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I register.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

[James Cook]

Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if
you prefer to be referred to some other way.

I grant a welcome package to Walker.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker  wrote:
>
> I register.
>
> --
> Walker

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[James Cook]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own
> understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical,
> well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider
> this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly
> amazing. I’m very happy I assigned you to judge this case.

Thanks! That was a nice message to wake up to.

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

CFJ 1500 finds that a term of art reverts to its English meaning when
the rule defining the term is repealed:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500 



On 6/2/19 9:19 PM, Rebecca wrote:

I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
proposals somehow?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cobb  wrote:


That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously
haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:


On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:

So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously
defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just
has no effect? Is that correct?

Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It
says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal',
which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't
exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the
other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one.

If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence
of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence
switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as
the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one.

--
ais523

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

One issue with that interpretation might be that "to flip" is a term of art.

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:19 PM Rebecca  wrote:

> I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
> ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
> the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
> happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
> proposals somehow?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously
> > haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously
> > > > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just
> > > > has no effect? Is that correct?
> > >
> > > Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It
> > > says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal',
> > > which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't
> > > exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the
> > > other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one.
> > >
> > > If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence
> > > of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence
> > > switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as
> > > the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ais523
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179

[Rebecca]

Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the
possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and
traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only
ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:12 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For each proposal below, if I haven’t yet, I vote AGAINST on it.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:21 PM ATMunn  wrote:
>
> > I vote FOR proposals 8178 and 8179.
> >
> > On 5/27/2019 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > > quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > > conditional votes).
> > >
> > > IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> > >
> >
> ---
> > > 8178  Trigon  3.0   n't
> > > 8179  D Margaux, Aris 2.0   Intent is Important (v1.1)
> > >
> > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > >
> > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8178
> > > Title: n't
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: Trigon
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > >
> > > In Rule 2125 'Mother, May I?':
> > >
> > >replace: "CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID"
> > >with:"CANNOT, CAN'T, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID"
> > >
> > >replace: "MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED"
> > >with:"MUST NOT, MUSTN'T, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, SHAN'T, ILLEGAL,
> > >PROHIBITED"
> > >
> > >replace: "NEED NOT, OPTIONAL"
> > >with:"NEED NOT, NEEDN'T, OPTIONAL"
> > >
> > >replace: "SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED"
> > >with:"SHOULD NOT, SHOULDN'T, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED"
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8179
> > > Title: Intent is Important (v1.1)
> > > Adoption index: 2.0
> > > Author: D Margaux
> > > Co-authors: Aris
> > >
> > >
> > > [Comment: I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless
> > they
> > > knew or should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law
> > > calls a “guilty mind”).]
> > >
> > > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text:
> > >
> > > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:”
> > >
> > > Add the following text as paragraph 3:
> > >
> > > “(3) the perp likely did not know and reasonably should not be expected
> > to
> > > have known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or
> > inaction
> > > that is the reason for the levy;”
> > >
> > > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
> > >
> > > //
> > >
> >
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Rebecca]

I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its
ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change "
the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival
happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing
proposals somehow?


On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously
> haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously
> > > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just
> > > has no effect? Is that correct?
> >
> > Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It
> > says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal',
> > which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't
> > exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the
> > other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one.
> >
> > If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence
> > of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence
> > switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as
> > the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
> >
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

IMO the biggest reason is that it makes it clear what situations cause
the rule to be outpowered (i.e. if it tries to change something in the
present that can't be changed, even if it could have been legally
changed under thhe past ruleset at the time).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Jason Cobb]

Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a
reply to Charles Walker.

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
>
> You write:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
>
> This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:12 PM Charles Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
>> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
>> > 3726 a couple of times.
>>
>> Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
>> into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
>> argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
>> have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.
>>
>> > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
>> > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
>> > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
>>
>> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
>> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
>> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
>> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>>
>> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
>> otherwise via legal fiction?
>> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
>> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
>> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
>> ratification.
>>
>

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Jason Cobb]

I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.

You write:
"In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."

This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
"Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts
is false does not constitute proof that it is true."

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:12 PM Charles Walker 
wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
>
> Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
> into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
> argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
> have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.
>
> > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
>
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
> otherwise via legal fiction?
> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
> ratification.
>

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

[Charles Walker]

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.

Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.

> (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)

R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

- Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
otherwise via legal fiction?
- It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
ratification.

DIS: Re: BUS: Referee Fix

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I believe this needs to be "and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude 
the investigation". Otherwise, the "in a timely fashion" would also apply to 
the CAN, so that the Referee COULD NOT conclude an investigation if it were 
overdue. I think.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 3:36 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Referee CAN Impose Fines
> Author: D. Margaux
> Co-Authors: Falsifian
> AI 1.7
> Text:
> Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text:
>
> “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the 
> allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by:”
>
> With this text:
>
> “When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the 
> allegation and, in a timely fashion, CAN and SHALL conclude the investigation 
> by:”

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Rance Bedwell]

 You have persuaded me at least.  Also, in this case I chose to send the second 
email.  But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no 
conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense 
interpretation to penalize the person.  
In addition to the arguments you already made, I would put forward that for a 
duplicate email announcing an action the second one no longer meets the 
"unambiguously and clearly specified" requirement of Rule 478 if the intent to 
perform it twice is not explicit.
If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE.
-Rance

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 11:01:24 PM CDT, James Cook 
 wrote:  
 
 On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell  wrote:
>  I make a COE for this Treasuror's report.  I posted two public messages 
>announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora.  If I had been wise I would have made 
>the second one conditional upon the + not succeeding.  I was not wise, so I 
>think I should only have 56 coins.

CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow.

I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ

Arguments:
I believe this is FALSE.

Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through
as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that
email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent
message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each
of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails.
The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating
the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple
messages.

Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The
fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use
common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent.

[0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451
[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452  

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously
haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :)

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously
> > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just
> > has no effect? Is that correct?
>
> Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It
> says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal',
> which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't
> exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the
> other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one.
>
> If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence
> of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence
> switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as
> the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously
> defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just
> has no effect? Is that correct?

Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It
says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal',
which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't
exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the
other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one.

If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence
of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence
switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as
the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously defined
by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just has no
effect? Is that correct?

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:10 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Thanks, that's an interesting history.
> > I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the
> > bullet point), right?
>
> Well, it's not doing anything negative at the moment, and might do
> something positive if Imminence ever gets defined again. I'd be
> inclined to just leave it.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:10 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Thanks, that's an interesting history.
> I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the
> bullet point), right?

Well, it's not doing anything negative at the moment, and might do
something positive if Imminence ever gets defined again. I'd be
inclined to just leave it.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

Thanks, that's an interesting history.
I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the bullet
point), right?

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > Hey, another newbie question for you all.
> >
> > Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the
> > Imminence of any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not
> > find the word "Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR (nor
> > does the string "immi").
> >
> > Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get
> > left behind in a previous update?
>
> Looks like a left-over rule change, yes. Also a potentially problematic
> one (that portion of the rule was intended to prevent invasions of
> large numbers of new players forcing through proposals via preventing
> the proposals from being distributed, but with "imminence" undefined it
> doesn't do anything).
>
> Imminence used to be a switch that specified whether the Promotor was
> allowed to distribute a proposal or not (you could submit proposals
> whenever you liked but had to pay for the distribution). The idea was
> partly that being able to have your proposals distributed is
> politically valuable and thus something that can be used as the basis
> of an economy, and partly to encourage people to think before proposing
> and to encourage discussion on a proposal before it's voted on. In
> practice, we tend to enact and repeal imminence mechanisms based on how
> much players are proposing.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Hey, another newbie question for you all.
> 
> Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the
> Imminence of any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not
> find the word "Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR (nor
> does the string "immi").
> 
> Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get
> left behind in a previous update?

Looks like a left-over rule change, yes. Also a potentially problematic
one (that portion of the rule was intended to prevent invasions of
large numbers of new players forcing through proposals via preventing
the proposals from being distributed, but with "imminence" undefined it
doesn't do anything).

Imminence used to be a switch that specified whether the Promotor was
allowed to distribute a proposal or not (you could submit proposals
whenever you liked but had to pay for the distribution). The idea was
partly that being able to have your proposals distributed is
politically valuable and thus something that can be used as the basis
of an economy, and partly to encourage people to think before proposing
and to encourage discussion on a proposal before it's voted on. In
practice, we tend to enact and repeal imminence mechanisms based on how
much players are proposing.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

Correction, Rule 2481, point 2, not point 3.

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> Hey, another newbie question for you all.
>
> Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of
> any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not find the word
> "Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR (nor does the string
> "immi").
>
> Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get left
> behind in a previous update?
>
> Jason Cobb
>

DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

[Jason Cobb]

Hey, another newbie question for you all.

Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of
any proposal;". However, a simple text search does not find the word
"Imminence" mentioned anywhere else in the SLR (nor does the string "immi").

Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get left
behind in a previous update?

Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I was under the impression that e can still be included in an election and 
voted for without eir consent, just not installed into the office if e wins. I 
thought that there was a recent CFJ about this but I can't find it.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, June 2, 2019 3:01 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of
> the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number!
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I vote for Corona in the ongoing Prime Minister election.
> > CFJ: "In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or reasonably
> > implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made the holder of Prime
> > Minister."
> > (Not that I actually expect enough votes for this to arise, but it would
> > be hilarious if it did.)
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
> > > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
> > > somewhat misguided reforms.
> > > ~Corona
>
> --
> D. Margaux

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

[D. Margaux]

If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of
the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number!

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> I vote for Corona in the ongoing Prime Minister election.
>
> CFJ: "In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or reasonably
> implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made the holder of Prime
> Minister."
>
> (Not that I actually expect enough votes for this to arise, but it would
> be hilarious if it did.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona 
> wrote:
>
> > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
> >
> > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
> > somewhat misguided reforms.
> >
> > ~Corona
>
-- 
D. Margaux

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

[Jason Cobb]

Thanks :)

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM ATMunn  wrote:

> Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb!
>
> On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I declare my intent to become a Player.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

[ATMunn]

Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb!

On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

I declare my intent to become a Player.

Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] a minor fix I think is important

[D Margaux]

I think this could be ambiguous — it could provide a reward for the first 
decision resolved in a week, or for the first time that any particular decision 
is resolved in a week (so only one reward for a decision resolved FAILED QUORUM 
and then REJECTED within a single week).

What about:  “Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, 
provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that or any other 
proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week.”

> On Jun 2, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal:
> 
> -
> Title: Paying our Assessor
> AI: 1
> Author: Trigon
> 
> [ Comment: This is something I didn't include from the version of
>  Rule 2496 that I didn't include for whatever reason. ]
> 
> To Rule 2496 "Rewards" add the following bullet point after the third one: 
> "Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal for the first 
> time this week: 5 coins."
> 
> -- 
> Trigon