Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
It isn’t conditioned on anything, so it should be fine.
BTW, you’re sending email to two lists. You should probably try to send it
to the one list that’s most appropriate for the contents of the email.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:44 PM David Seeber
wrote:
> Ah, I see, my mistake.
>
> Well I guess I'll just wait then :) I assume the first CFJ was still valid?
>
> From: agora-business on behalf of
> Aris Merchant
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 7:32:43 AM
> To: Agora Business
> Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
>
> You can’t condition game actions on the outcome of a CFJ. Future
> conditionals are not currently permitted outside of voting.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:29 PM David Seeber
> wrote:
>
> > I cfj the following :
> >
> > "There was only
> > one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam."
> >
> > Argument against :
> >
> > Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
> > Mexican pesos are coins.
> > Valid currency for this auctions is coins
> >
> > Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only legal
> > tender was an AGORAN coin, I argue that there were TWO valid bids.
> >
> > If this is accepted, {
> >
> > { I cfj the following:
> >
> > "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> >
> > Argument in favour :
> >
> > Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> > The highest bidder wins the auction.
> > Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> > }
> >
> > AND
> >
> > { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was
> > evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by
> Trigon,
> > instead of ignoring it.}
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > From: agora-business on behalf
> of
> > omd
> > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:49:21 PM
> > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> > Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM omd wrote:
> > > I hereby initiate an Auction. I am the Auctioneer and the Announcer;
> > > the currency is coins, and the minimum bid is one coin.
> > >
> > > This Auction contains a single lot, and that lot contains a single
> item,
> > namely,
> > >
> > > ONE UNITED STATES DOLLAR.
> >
> > As the Announcer, I announce the end of this Auction. There was only
> > one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. E is the winner of
> > the only lot, and is now required to transfer payment.
> >
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
Ah, I see, my mistake.
Well I guess I'll just wait then :) I assume the first CFJ was still valid?
From: agora-business on behalf of Aris
Merchant
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 7:32:43 AM
To: Agora Business
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
You can’t condition game actions on the outcome of a CFJ. Future
conditionals are not currently permitted outside of voting.
-Aris
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:29 PM David Seeber
wrote:
> I cfj the following :
>
> "There was only
> one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam."
>
> Argument against :
>
> Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
> Mexican pesos are coins.
> Valid currency for this auctions is coins
>
> Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only legal
> tender was an AGORAN coin, I argue that there were TWO valid bids.
>
> If this is accepted, {
>
> { I cfj the following:
>
> "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
>
> Argument in favour :
>
> Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> The highest bidder wins the auction.
> Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> }
>
> AND
>
> { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was
> evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by Trigon,
> instead of ignoring it.}
>
> }
>
>
>
> From: agora-business on behalf of
> omd
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:49:21 PM
> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM omd wrote:
> > I hereby initiate an Auction. I am the Auctioneer and the Announcer;
> > the currency is coins, and the minimum bid is one coin.
> >
> > This Auction contains a single lot, and that lot contains a single item,
> namely,
> >
> > ONE UNITED STATES DOLLAR.
>
> As the Announcer, I announce the end of this Auction. There was only
> one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. E is the winner of
> the only lot, and is now required to transfer payment.
>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
I cfj the following :
"There was only
one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam."
Argument against :
Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
Mexican pesos are coins.
Valid currency for this auctions is coins
Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only legal
tender was an AGORAN coin, I argue that there were TWO valid bids.
If this is accepted, {
{ I cfj the following:
"Trigon is the winner of the auction"
Argument in favour :
Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
The highest bidder wins the auction.
Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
}
AND
{ I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was
evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by Trigon,
instead of ignoring it.}
}
From: agora-business on behalf of omd
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:49:21 PM
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM omd wrote:
> I hereby initiate an Auction. I am the Auctioneer and the Announcer;
> the currency is coins, and the minimum bid is one coin.
>
> This Auction contains a single lot, and that lot contains a single item,
> namely,
>
> ONE UNITED STATES DOLLAR.
As the Announcer, I announce the end of this Auction. There was only
one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. E is the winner of
the only lot, and is now required to transfer payment.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]
On Thu, 2019-06-13 at 14:52 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > "understood" :) > > To fill this out, at one time we had a more strictly-structured > judges' rota system that used a bunch of puns on the "bench" concepts > with switches on whether a judge was "sitting" or "standing" and > "lying down" IIRC that indicated how recently e'd been a judge. > Actually relevant given omd's post on judicial reforms, as I was > playing with the idea of trying such a rota again (informally, or if > there are judicial reforms in the air via proposal). If we bring the Standing Court back, I'd recommend doing it in such a way that violations of the fairly complex rota rules are a CAN but SHALL NOT thing, rather than making the assignment fail altogether. That thing was an excellent example of the Agoran tradition of giant nests of puns that last for years, but the actual mechanics could easily get out of sync due to missing a judge. (Incidentally, it strikes me that there's something of a back-and-forth between high and low levels of officer discretion. The Standing Court was definitely at the "low end of officer discretion" end of the scale, and the relevant officer was called "Clerk of the Courts" for a reason. Meanwhile, our current system encourages the Arbitor to be capricious, but in practice there are limits to that because they might end up getting voted out if they take it too far.) FWIW, having stricter judge rotation rules is probably only interesting if the act of judging is tied to the economy somehow, otherwise it basically just reduces flexibility for no good reason. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
The Rules define CANNOT as "Attempts to perform the described action are
unsuccessful", not as though the actions physically cannot be attempted,
so perhaps "CANNOT" does make sense here.
Perhaps another option would be to standardise _new_ terminology
throughout the Rules - maybe we could say that interpretations or
attempts to infer/reason from the rules are VALID or INVALID? That would
also prevent creating criminal liability. It would also be more
searchable for newer judges (myself included).
Jason Cobb
On 6/13/19 7:45 AM, Rebecca wrote:
that's dumb. the rules can't say that 'interpreting' something is
IMPOSSIBLE (well they can, but it utterly defies reality). instead they
have to just positively say what is true under them; to wit, they do not
proscribe unregulated actions.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:38 PM D. Margaux wrote:
What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to
CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
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: comments on theses
Just wanted to make a couple comments: 1. I think CuddleBeam's text is decent for an A.N., but I would object to any A.N. where the text wasn't published in Agora first (especially given the editable nature of the Wiki). 2. Falsifian's work on the CFJs is excellent and deserving of thesis, furthermore it has been well-discussed. In terms of which degree, it gave me an idea - we need a law school: Proto proposal - "law school" In R1367, Insert the following line between the line starting "- Associate" and the line starting "- Bachelor": - Juris Doctor of Nomic (J.N.) In R1367, Insert the following line between the line starting "- Doctor of Nomic History" and the line starting "- Doctor of Nomic Science": - Doctor of Nomic Law(D.N.Law.) If Falsifian has not been awarded a degree, Award Falsifian the degree of J.N. [The J.N. is intended for a well-written and researched CFJ opinion - but also could serve as an alternative "first" degree to A.N. as judicial opinions are our chief type of long-form research writing. The D.N.Law is for e.g. multiple comparisons of a range of CFJs to look at overarching principles, etc.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM omd wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 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). > > Nit: Submitting a new CoE and having it be denied doesn't make the > document undoubted, since the CFJ is still a doubt. Ooh, I'd been reading this wrong the for the longest time. I'd been reading "(causing it to cease to be a doubt)" as "causing the document to cease to be in doubt" instead of "causing the specific CoE to cease being a doubt". I stand corrected.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]
"understood" :) To fill this out, at one time we had a more strictly-structured judges' rota system that used a bunch of puns on the "bench" concepts with switches on whether a judge was "sitting" or "standing" and "lying down" IIRC that indicated how recently e'd been a judge. Actually relevant given omd's post on judicial reforms, as I was playing with the idea of trying such a rota again (informally, or if there are judicial reforms in the air via proposal). On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:42 PM omd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > I'm sorry, what does this mean? > > Obsolete terminology for saying that I'm interested in judging cases. > I figured it was okay since G. would understand it, but maybe I should > have been less cute.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > 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). Nit: Submitting a new CoE and having it be denied doesn't make the document undoubted, since the CFJ is still a doubt.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm sorry, what does this mean? Obsolete terminology for saying that I'm interested in judging cases. I figured it was okay since G. would understand it, but maybe I should have been less cute.
DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]
I'm sorry, what does this mean? Jason Cobb On 6/13/19 5:22 PM, omd wrote: I sit up.
Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment
I personally like the idea of requiring judgments to be published before becoming binding. I think that worked out well for everyone when Falsifian did something similar (although less formally, of course). You mention apathy being an issue for gathering actual arguments in response to a CFJ. Perhaps a solution would be to permit judges to award Coins (or some other asset) to people who submit helpful arguments (or counterarguments during the comment period, in the system you describe)? Although I worry that that might create perverse incentives. Jason Cobb On 6/13/19 5:15 PM, omd wrote: Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements. Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833). The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I think there's a bit of a stigma against supporting reconsideration, perhaps because it seems to suggest that the judge did a bad job. Adding to that is apathy: deciding whether to support reconsideration requires taking time to examine the original judgement and the counterargument, while ignoring it is free. Perhaps some people did examine my quibble and just decided it was bogus, but if so, nobody cared enough to make the point in writing. In the second one, as it turns out, I found every point to be completely reasonable and well-justified. Indeed, if someone else had tried the scam and I had been the judge, I might have reasoned similarly, though probably not as elegantly. (I wouldn't have attempted the scam if I didn't think it had a decent chance of being upheld as valid, but that's a lower standard than thinking it definitely should be.) Yet while I was reading the judgement, it occurred to me that it was making quite a lot of points that were now in some sense "set in stone" – deciding the case itself as well as setting precedent – without anyone having had the chance to critique them first. Of course, if I had had any objections I could have moved for reconsideration again, but the same stigma/apathy combo as before would likely be an obstacle, especially if my objections were minor. Which makes me wonder if we could change the rules to make judgements a bit more of an interactive process. Something like: - The judge files a proto-judgement; - There is a week (or maybe four days?) during which any other player can file a formal counterargument; - When the week passes, if there are no counterarguments then the judgement becomes final. If there are counterarguments, the judge has another week to publish an updated judgement which must briefly address each of them. There's no pressure for em to change eir outcome or reasoning if e doesn't find them compelling, but e should briefly explain why e disagrees. Comparing to the U.S. judicial system, judges do typically file written opinions without first circulating drafts, and they're free to include novel theories in those opinions which none of the parties had a chance to address. But in my understanding, they usually don't, largely because of a few differences: First, every real-world case has at least two parties who file thorough briefs arguing for their side and responding to the other side's arguments; collectively, the briefs tend to explore the issue thoroughly. In Agora, thanks to apathy (and the pay scale), CFJs often have only brief comments from the caller, or sometimes no arguments at all, by the time they get to a judge to rule on. Now, that's not the judge's fault. It's arguably the responsibility of all parties with a vested interest in a CFJ's outcome to file arguments in advance of judgement; personally, I'm not proud of neglecting to submit any arguments regarding either of the CFJs I mentioned before. Yet even when there is a decent amount of argument, it rarely gets anywhere close to the level of thoroughness with which lawyers address the issues in real-world cases, so it's inevitable that judges end up having to come up with more theories on their own. Second, real-world cases (at least the interesting ones) typically have oral argument before getting to the point of a written opinion. Especially in appellate court, but also in trial court when there are questions of law (rather than fact), this tends to involve the judge frequently interrupting the lawyers' arguments to ask questions, often pointed questions which amount to "how do you respond to argument X?". This effectively gives the judge an opportunity to try out eir reasoning on the lawyers before incorporating it into a written opinion. We don't have any equivalent of that. Third, binding precedents are only set by appellate court rulings, which are always decided by a panel of multiple judges, not just one. Fourth, since the real-world legal system has orders of magnitude more precedent, there just aren't many cases in the first place where the judg
DIS: Idea: Notice and comment
Idea: Create a Rules-defined "notice and comment" process for judgements. Since I became active, there have been two judgements in CFJs about minor scams I attempted (3728 and 3833). The first one I had a minor quibble with, so I moved for reconsideration, but nobody bothered to support it. I think there's a bit of a stigma against supporting reconsideration, perhaps because it seems to suggest that the judge did a bad job. Adding to that is apathy: deciding whether to support reconsideration requires taking time to examine the original judgement and the counterargument, while ignoring it is free. Perhaps some people did examine my quibble and just decided it was bogus, but if so, nobody cared enough to make the point in writing. In the second one, as it turns out, I found every point to be completely reasonable and well-justified. Indeed, if someone else had tried the scam and I had been the judge, I might have reasoned similarly, though probably not as elegantly. (I wouldn't have attempted the scam if I didn't think it had a decent chance of being upheld as valid, but that's a lower standard than thinking it definitely should be.) Yet while I was reading the judgement, it occurred to me that it was making quite a lot of points that were now in some sense "set in stone" – deciding the case itself as well as setting precedent – without anyone having had the chance to critique them first. Of course, if I had had any objections I could have moved for reconsideration again, but the same stigma/apathy combo as before would likely be an obstacle, especially if my objections were minor. Which makes me wonder if we could change the rules to make judgements a bit more of an interactive process. Something like: - The judge files a proto-judgement; - There is a week (or maybe four days?) during which any other player can file a formal counterargument; - When the week passes, if there are no counterarguments then the judgement becomes final. If there are counterarguments, the judge has another week to publish an updated judgement which must briefly address each of them. There's no pressure for em to change eir outcome or reasoning if e doesn't find them compelling, but e should briefly explain why e disagrees. Comparing to the U.S. judicial system, judges do typically file written opinions without first circulating drafts, and they're free to include novel theories in those opinions which none of the parties had a chance to address. But in my understanding, they usually don't, largely because of a few differences: First, every real-world case has at least two parties who file thorough briefs arguing for their side and responding to the other side's arguments; collectively, the briefs tend to explore the issue thoroughly. In Agora, thanks to apathy (and the pay scale), CFJs often have only brief comments from the caller, or sometimes no arguments at all, by the time they get to a judge to rule on. Now, that's not the judge's fault. It's arguably the responsibility of all parties with a vested interest in a CFJ's outcome to file arguments in advance of judgement; personally, I'm not proud of neglecting to submit any arguments regarding either of the CFJs I mentioned before. Yet even when there is a decent amount of argument, it rarely gets anywhere close to the level of thoroughness with which lawyers address the issues in real-world cases, so it's inevitable that judges end up having to come up with more theories on their own. Second, real-world cases (at least the interesting ones) typically have oral argument before getting to the point of a written opinion. Especially in appellate court, but also in trial court when there are questions of law (rather than fact), this tends to involve the judge frequently interrupting the lawyers' arguments to ask questions, often pointed questions which amount to "how do you respond to argument X?". This effectively gives the judge an opportunity to try out eir reasoning on the lawyers before incorporating it into a written opinion. We don't have any equivalent of that. Third, binding precedents are only set by appellate court rulings, which are always decided by a panel of multiple judges, not just one. Fourth, since the real-world legal system has orders of magnitude more precedent, there just aren't many cases in the first place where the judge is expected to come up with a legal framework out of whole cloth, as opposed to deciding which of multiple competing precedents is most applicable to the circumstances, or how to apply a precedent to circumstances that are slightly different. So there's more of a roadmap as to what issues the judge is going to address. Anyway, I realized that while my idea is unlike the U.S. *judicial* system, it does resemble how notice and comment works in federal rulemaking. An agency first publishes a proposed rule; this starts a 30 to 180 day period during which interested parties can formally submit comments.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Priest] Weekly Report
After more discussion, I plan to motion to reconsider my own judgement to deal with this situation, because I apparently left out enough context to imply this worked. Basically, to infer from my argument is that R2123 means "defining things to add to weekly reports" or "to be a weekly report" is regulated, and therefore can only happen as the rules explicitly allow. If that isn't adequately inferrable, I'll expand that section. On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:29 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > I publish the below report and I claim a reward of 5 coins for it. > > Under Hereric-Judge G.'s recent CFJ, it still may be the case that a > contract-created pseudo-office's report is a "duty fulfilling report." > > The below report is duty fulfilling; the question is whether it is a > "report” under Heretic-Judge G.’s reasoning. > > It is a report because the Priest’s duty to publish it is, in part, > supplied by the Rules relating to weekly reports. In particular, the > contract requires the Priest to publish a “weekly report,” as that term is > defined in the rules. Failing to publish on a weekly basis the below > report (or something substantially similar) would violate a duty created > jointly by the contract and the rules describing what constitutes a “weekly > report” in general. So, publishing the report fulfills a duty imposed in > part by the rules governing “weekly reports.” > > That reasoning would not require us to expand the definition of "report" to > include all the various different kinds of informal reports of information > that Heretic-Judge G. identifies in eir parade of horribles. Instead, it > could still be limited to "weekly reports" as that term is defined by Rule. > The duty to publish such a report may be created by a rule establishing an > office, or a contract establishing a pseudo-office, and it is still a > “weekly report” as the rules define it. > > * > > Priest’s Weekly Report > Date of this report: 2019-06-13 > > Religion-Imposed Offices > > > Priest - D. Margaux > Inquisitor - D. Margaux > Heretic - G. > > > Sacred Text > === > > This contract is called the Church of The Ritual or the Church. The text of > this contract is called the Sacred Text. > > Parties to the contract are the faithful; nonparties are heathens. A > heathen can become faithful by announcement upon transferring 5 coins to > the Church of The Ritual. A faithful can become heathen by announcement, > unless that faithful has left unsatisfied one or more collection > obligations. > > When the Sacred Text refers to a “religion-imposed office,” that means a > switch that behaves as closely as possible to the way it would behave if it > were an imposed office created by rule. > > The priest, the heretic, and the inquisitor are religion-imposed offices. > The priest is the recordkeepor of the holders of the religion-imposed > offices. The priest is also the recordkeepor of the Sacred Text. The priest > SHALL publish as part of eir weekly report a list of the holders of those > offices and the Sacred Text. > > If a faithful performs The Ritual at a time when the office of priest is > vacant, then that faithful is installed as priest. > > If the first player to perform The Ritual in a given Agoran week is > faithful, then e is installed as the priest; otherwise, the first heathen > to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed as the heretic and > the first faithful to perform The Ritual in that Agoran week is installed > as the inquisitor. > > If the heretic recants eir heresy and abjectly apologizes, then the priest > CAN by announcement cleanse the heretic and e SHALL do so in a timely > manner if e believes the heretic to be sincere. When the heretic is > cleansed, the offices of heretic and inquisitor are made vacant. > > If the heretic becomes faithful, then the offices of heretic and inquisitor > are made vacant. > > The faithful MUST prevent all players from becoming the heretic; failure to > do so is the crime of Abetting Heresy. > > The heretic SHOULD be shunned. The inquisitor SHOULD actively seek the > consensus of the faithful regarding what would be an appropriate shunning. > > The priest and inquisitor SHOULD be treated right good. Upon being > installed in the office of priest or inquisitor, a faithful CAN once cause > the Church to transfer to em up to 3 coins. > > If the Church has fewer than 10 coins, any faithful CAN by announcement > with support from another faithful once call a collection. If a collection > is called, each faithful MUST in a timely fashion satisfy eir collection > obligation by transferring to the Church 5 coins. If a faithful has left a > collection obligation unsatisfied for longer than 7 days, any faithful CAN > act on eir behalf to satisfy that obligation by causing em to transfer to > the Church 5 coins. > > /// > -- > D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
that's dumb. the rules can't say that 'interpreting' something is
IMPOSSIBLE (well they can, but it utterly defies reality). instead they
have to just positively say what is true under them; to wit, they do not
proscribe unregulated actions.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:38 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to
> CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
>
> > On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > 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
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to CANNOT--"the
rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> 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
