DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
> > 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
> but still seems unnecessary)
> > 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
The below report is also missing D. Margaux's 2019-06-03 reward, but
it won't self-ratify because it's already CoE-ed. The "fresh" report
at [0] already includes the update.
[0] https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/fresh.txt
On Tue, 11 Jun 2019 at 01:59, James Cook wrote:
>
> I publish the below report; then make a claim of error on it: omd's
> attempt to earn 5 Coins on 2019-06-07 might not have succeeded; then I
> respond to my claim of error by citing the CFJ I called 2019-06-08:
> "On June 7, 2019, omd earned 5 Coins for publishing a duty-fulfilling
> report."
>
>
> Forbes 500
>
>
> Disclaimer: This report assumes omd's attempt to earn 5 Coins on 2019-06-07
> succeeded.
>
> Date of this weekly report: 2019-06-11
> Date of last weekly report: 2019-06-06
>
> Archive of reports on the web:
> https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/
>
>
> ASSET INDEX
>
> This section does not self-ratify.
>
>Asset classRecordkeeporOwnership
>----
>Coins Treasuror Agora, players, contracts
>Blots Referee Persons
>
>
> COIN BALANCES
>
> This section self-ratifies.
> Entities not listed have a Coin balance of 0.
>
>CoinsActive player
>--
> 146ATMunn
> 156Aris
> 30Bernie
> 74CuddleBeam
> 1011D. Margaux
> 267Falsifian
> 706G.
> 90Gaelan
> 118Jacob Arduino
> 15Jason Cobb
> 192Murphy
>0o
> 126omd
> 66Rance
> 440Trigon
> 822twg
> 14V.J. Rada
> 14Walker
>
>CoinsZombie
>---
> 40Corona
> 10Hālian
> 10L
> 40Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 10Tarhalindur
>0Telnaior
>
>CoinsNon-player entity
>--
> 1207Agora
> 87Lost and Found Department
> 20Reformed Church [0]
>
> [0] Contract proposed by G. on 2019-06-06, titled 'Reformed Church of the
> Ritual - Candle Division ("Reformed Church")'
>
>
> PERFORMANCES OF THE RITUAL
>
> Unofficial section. Does not self-ratify.
>
> Week Performer(s) Notes
> - --
> 2019-04-22..28 D. MargauxAris transferred 4 Coins to D. Margaux.
> 2019-04-29..05-05 Falsifian
> 2019-05-06..12 Falsifian
> 2019-05-13..19 Falsifian
> 2019-05-20..26 Falsifian Rance transferred 7 Coins to Falsifian.
> 2019-05-27..06-02 (none)
> 2019-06-03..09 Jason Cobb
> 2019-06-10..16 G.Through the Reformed Church
>
>
> RECENT HISTORY
>
> This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
>
> Entity Change Date (UTC)Reason
>
> G. - 7c. 2019-06-10 15:24 Fee to perform The Ritual
> G. + 7c. 2019-06-10 15:24 Transfer from Reformed Church
> Reformed Church- 7c. 2019-06-10 15:24 Transfer to G.
> Reformed Church+ 3c. 2019-06-10 15:24 Transfer from G.
> G. - 3c. 2019-06-10 15:24 Transfer to Reformed Church
> G. + 10c. 2019-06-07 17:12 Transfer from Telnaior
> Telnaior - 10c. 2019-06-07 17:12 Transfer to G.
> Reformed Church+ 3c. 2019-06-07 13:48 Transfor from G.
> G. - 3c. 2019-06-07 13:48 Transfer to Reformed Church
> Reformed Church+ 21c. 2019-06-07 13:48 Transfor from G.
> G. - 21c. 2019-06-07 13:48 Transfer to Reformed Church
> Rance + 5c. 2019-06-07 04:00 Reward (Herald weekly)
> Walker + 4c. 2019-06-07 03:13 Transfer from o
> o - 4c. 2019-06-07 03:13 Transfer to Walker
> V.J. Rada + 4c. 2019-06-07 03:13 Transfer from o
> o - 4c. 2019-06-07 03:13 Transfer to V.J. Rada
> Jason Cobb + 12c. 2019-06-07 03:13 Transfer from o
> o - 12c. 2019-06-07 03:13 Transfer to Jason Cobb
> omd+ 5c. 2019-06-07 02:20 Reward (Haberdashery)
> Falsifian + 5c. 2019-06-06 23:42 Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> Falsifian + 5c. 2019-06-06 23:42 Reward (Registrar weekly)
> Falsifian + 5c. 2019-06-06 23:42 Reward (judging CFJ 3727)
> Falsifian + 5c.
DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Jun 11, 2019, at 5:53 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [My recent posts included all the info in a Gazette in a minimal form, > so I might as well call it a Gazette while waiting for any > corrections... more complete-form Gazettes in the future...] > > I deputise for the Arbitor to publish the following Weekly Report: Welcome back, your honour. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
DIS: Re: implausible denial
Actually, the "cite a relevant existing inquiry case" part needs a public qualification too. How about moving it up a level: Replace: do one of the following in a timely fashion: with do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement that clearly cites the claim of error: On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:01 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Denial", AI-3: > --- > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing: > 1. Deny the claim > with: > 1. Publicly and clearly deny the claim > > [Yeah, a denial should be public] > ---
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: implausible denial
Any verbs that are "speech verbs" (e.g. object, doubt, support, deny, claim, etc.) are assumed to be doable by email virtue of the factual evidence of the email that constitutes the act - so for those we say it needs to be public, but we don't have to specify "by announcement". But "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" is much better grammar anyway so I'll go with that. :) On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:10 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > It's still unclear what method a player can use to "deny" a claim (or even > what a denial is). > > What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or > "publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement" > > > > On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Denial", AI-3: > > --- > > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing: > > 1. Deny the claim > > with: > > 1. Publicly and clearly deny the claim > > > > [Yeah, a denial should be public] > > ---
DIS: Re: BUS: implausible denial
It's still unclear what method a player can use to "deny" a claim (or even what a denial is). What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or "publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement" > On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Denial", AI-3: > --- > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing: > 1. Deny the claim > with: > 1. Publicly and clearly deny the claim > > [Yeah, a denial should be public] > ---
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a "new" document, or re-CoE the old one (which gives the publisher an opportunity to deny the claim). On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:27 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > No, report won't self ratify unless the CFJ says players CAN expunge blots > > > On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the > > resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment? > > > > Jason Cobb > > > >> On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > >> I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734 > >> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > >>> > >>> Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending > >>> resolution of CFJ 3734, it is unknown whether players CAN or CANNOT > >>> expunge Blots. Thus the listed totals may be incorrect. > >>> > >>> Jason Cobb > >>> > On 6/12/19 4:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I publish the below report. I claim a reward of 5 coins for publishing > >>> it. > *** > > Referee’s Weekly Report > Date of This Report: 2019-06-12 > Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03 > > BLOT HOLDINGS > === > This section self-ratifies. > > BlotsPlayer > --- > 5twg > 2V.J. Rada > 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 1L. > 1Murphy > 1Aris > > BlotsFugitive > - > 8Corona > 4Kenyon > > RECENT CHANGES > == > This section does not self-ratify. > > 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot > 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot > 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot > 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot > > RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS > = > This section does not self-ratify. > > 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a > Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, > and Aris was fined 1 blot. > > 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at 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, and Baron von Vaderham. > RESULT: The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines > were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730 > issued 12 June 2019.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
No, report won't self ratify unless the CFJ says players CAN expunge blots > On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the > resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment? > > Jason Cobb > >> On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734 >> >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote: >>> >>> Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending >>> resolution of CFJ 3734, it is unknown whether players CAN or CANNOT >>> expunge Blots. Thus the listed totals may be incorrect. >>> >>> Jason Cobb >>> On 6/12/19 4:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I publish the below report. I claim a reward of 5 coins for publishing >>> it. *** Referee’s Weekly Report Date of This Report: 2019-06-12 Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03 BLOT HOLDINGS === This section self-ratifies. BlotsPlayer --- 5twg 2V.J. Rada 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 1L. 1Murphy 1Aris BlotsFugitive - 8Corona 4Kenyon RECENT CHANGES == This section does not self-ratify. 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS = This section does not self-ratify. 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and Aris was fined 1 blot. 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at 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, and Baron von Vaderham. RESULT: The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730 issued 12 June 2019.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment? Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending resolution of CFJ 3734, it is unknown whether players CAN or CANNOT expunge Blots. Thus the listed totals may be incorrect. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 4:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I publish the below report. I claim a reward of 5 coins for publishing it. *** Referee’s Weekly Report Date of This Report: 2019-06-12 Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03 BLOT HOLDINGS === This section self-ratifies. BlotsPlayer --- 5twg 2V.J. Rada 3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 1L. 1Murphy 1Aris BlotsFugitive - 8Corona 4Kenyon RECENT CHANGES == This section does not self-ratify. 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS = This section does not self-ratify. 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and Aris was fined 1 blot. 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at 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, and Baron von Vaderham. RESULT: The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730 issued 12 June 2019.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
Sorry, I'm being an idiot - I was looking back and forth between things and got the SHOULD/SHALL thing backwards backwards. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of > reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you > look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me > anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour > that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated > right good forever." I don't want to turn behavior towards a Hero > into a SHALL. > > More generally, R2231 aside, I just don't see a strong use case for > codifying a capitalization for this (it doesn't fill in a missing > grammatical construction or anything). >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
I’m sorry, but I’m confused. Did anyone propose to turn it into a SHALL? -Aris On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:45 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of > reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you > look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me > anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour > that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated > right good forever." I don't want to turn behavior towards a Hero > into a SHALL. > > More generally, R2231 aside, I just don't see a strong use case for > codifying a capitalization for this (it doesn't fill in a missing > grammatical construction or anything). > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:22 AM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some > > difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the > > provided definition. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > > > That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. > > > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." > I > > > would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a > > > moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and > they're > > > synonymous..? > > > > > > > >> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not > > > really OUGHT, though. > > > >> > > > >> Jason Cobb > > > >> > > > >>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > >>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? > > > >>> AGAINST > > > >>> > > > >>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes > > > >>> FOR > > > >>> > > > >>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? > > > >>> FOR > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
I think they cover mostly the same semantic area. There might be some difference around the edges, but the two expressions both seem to fit the provided definition. -Aris On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I > would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a > moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're > synonymous..? > > > >> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> > >> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not > really OUGHT, though. > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > >>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: > >>> > >>> > >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? > >>> AGAINST > >>> > >>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes > >>> FOR > >>> > >>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? > >>> FOR >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're synonymous..? On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really OUGHT, though. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I vote and cause L to vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) FOR 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies FOR 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform FOR 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence FOR 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? AGAINST 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes FOR 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? FOR
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're synonymous..? > On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really > OUGHT, though. > > Jason Cobb > >> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I vote and cause L to vote as follows: >> >> >> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor >> FOR >> >> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) >> FOR >> >> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies >> FOR >> >> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform >> FOR >> >> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence >> FOR >> >> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? >> AGAINST >> >> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes >> FOR >> >> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? >> FOR
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really OUGHT, though. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I vote and cause L to vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) FOR 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies FOR 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform FOR 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence FOR 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we? AGAINST 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes FOR 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh? FOR
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy
On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote: >> Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP >> CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.” > > ... > > Obviously the flipped form in R2154 is a grammatically > strong case for (2). Indeed. The "in a timely fashion" modifier immediately precedes "CAN," not "SHALL." So that phrase modifies either "CAN" or "CAN and SHALL"--but I don't see how it could be read grammatically to modify "SHALL" alone, and NOT "CAN."
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote: > Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP > CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.” IMO one of the biggest recurring grammatical issues in the Rules is whether "CAN and SHALL in a timely fashion" is "CAN (and SHALL in a timely fashion)" or "(CAN and SHALL) in a timely fashion". It's come up a few times at least but does anyone remember if we solved it in a CFJ somewhere? Obviously the flipped form in R2154 is a grammatically strong case for (2). I tried at one point to introduce the definition WILL (e.g. "The AdoP WILL initiate...") where WILL means one of those two options, but I think opinions were split on which option should be the default. There are use cases for both.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy
Oh wow. That’s funny. I didn’t even notice that that was for a prior year election. Lol. This made me notice another big problem. There is an ongoing “election” under Rule 2154, and I don’t think there’s any way to terminate it! Here’s why: Several weeks ago, an “election” for PM was “initiated” under Rule 2154. The ADOP opened a nomination period, and i think G. and Aris both announced eir candidacies? Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.” The ADOP made two attempts to do that, but under R107 those attempts "invalid" because they failed to identify Aris as a valid option. I then tried to distribute the Agoran decision as Deputy ADOP, but that didn’t work because more than 1 week has passed since the close of the nomination period! R2154 clearly says that the ADOP “CAN” initiate the Agoran decision only “in a timely fashion after the nomination period ends.” And my attempt was more than 1 week after the nomination period, so i could not initiate the decision as deputy ADOP at that time! If that’s true, then there’s no way to initiate an Agoran decision on the PM election and there’s no other way to terminate that election! What a mess! > On Jun 12, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > It's trivially TRUE in the context of the ~July 6 election (and based on > how the CFJ is worded, that's enough for a trivial TRUE without addressing > the current election, that twg was intending to address). > > BUT, in terms of the matter twg was trying to get at, Corona gave consent in > the context of a previous election. Personally, if I consent to be > installed into office during the course of a particular election, I wouldn't > think I'd be consenting to every future election! (and if it's construed > that I did consent for all future elections, it sure wasn't with my > informed wilful consent!) > >> On 6/12/2019 7:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently >> became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's >> consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any >> prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what >> I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me. >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> >>> The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy. >>> >>> === CFJ 3732 === >>> >>>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. >>> >>> == >>> >>> Caller:twg >>> >>> Judge: Murphy >>> >>> == >>> >>> History: >>> >>> Called by twg:02 Jun 2019 14:59:08 >>> Assigned to Murphy: (as of this message) >>> >>> == >>> >>> Caller's Evidence: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> == >>>
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy
It's trivially TRUE in the context of the ~July 6 election (and based on how the CFJ is worded, that's enough for a trivial TRUE without addressing the current election, that twg was intending to address). BUT, in terms of the matter twg was trying to get at, Corona gave consent in the context of a previous election. Personally, if I consent to be installed into office during the course of a particular election, I wouldn't think I'd be consenting to every future election! (and if it's construed that I did consent for all future elections, it sure wasn't with my informed wilful consent!) On 6/12/2019 7:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy. === CFJ 3732 === 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. == Caller:twg Judge: Murphy == History: Called by twg:02 Jun 2019 14:59:08 Assigned to Murphy: (as of this message) == Caller's Evidence: 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 ==
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy
Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy. > > === CFJ 3732 === > >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. > > == > > Caller:twg > > Judge: Murphy > > == > > History: > > Called by twg:02 Jun 2019 14:59:08 > Assigned to Murphy: (as of this message) > > == > > Caller's Evidence: > > 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 > > == >
