Re: DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
On Fri, 21 Jun 2019 at 05:26, David Seeber wrote: > Cool.. Does that mean I committed a crime? I'm not sure, but I think no. The phrasing "would be impossible" is a little strange. The word "would" could indicate it's referring to some hypothetical scenario, but I'm not sure what scenario that would be. It might simply be referring to the future, in which case we now know, having experienced that future, that it wasn't a crime.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
Cool.. Does that mean I committed a crime?
In my defense I would like to point out that I was still a zombie and may not
have been in full control of my actions :)
From: agora-discussion on behalf of
James Cook
Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 3:47:16 PM
To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF)
Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber wrote:
> I cfj the following
>
> {Baron von Vaderham's bid of 11 coins in the most recent zombie auction of
> June 6th was UNSUCCESSFUL}
>
> Argument in favour:
>
> Baron von Vaderham possessed 0 coins at the time of the auction, since he was
> fleeced by Rance whilst a zombie.
Is there a Rule that says you can't bid if you don't have the money?
R2550 (Bidding) says: "A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it
would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the
Auction." which, if I understand right, makes your action ILLEGAL if
can find the money in the next few hours, but not unsuccessful.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:08 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do? Kick the can down the road until the rule can be fixed. > Also not really something we can force upon em... We can't force em to judge any particular way either.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
I vote FALSE, DISMISS
From: agora-business on behalf of Jason
Cobb
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 6:03:37 AM
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
I vote {TRUE, PARADOXICAL (totally not out of self interest), DISMISS}.
I really don't think this is IRRELEVANT, as breathing could be replaced
with any action that the Rules don't directly regulate.
I put DISMISS in there because I think an argument could be made that
the undecidability comes out of the case itself, as the issue is Rule
2125's SHALL NOT that pertains interpreting the Rules.
Jason Cobb
On 6/21/19 12:37 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or
> IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other
> thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands
> behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for
> reconsideration or w/e
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
I put equal weight on TRUE and DISMISS. (Sorry, this email is more of an argument than a vote.) It may be TRUE by R. Lee's argument about limits. (Sorry if I got TRUE/FALSE mixed up there.) If not, it should be DISMISS. First of all, I think this business of judges not legally being able to judge it is beside the point. If it's an issue, we should filibuster the CFJ with recusals, moots and/or motions of reconsideration until we're able to fix the rules so that the judge can do eir job properly. At that point, what are we to make of the SHALL NOT that used to be in R2125? Having been deleted, it will no longer put the judge at risk of breaking the rules. But I think it will still mean something: after all, a case should be judged "based on the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated". I think common sense tells us that this clause exists to stop such interpretations from being made. (Especially in the context of the proposal that added it; see my recent email 'History of "The rules SHALL NOT be interpreted..."'.) It is only appropriate, then, that we avoid making such an interpretation. So, if the "correct" answer would otherwise be FALSE, I think this falls under "otherwise not able to be answered with another valid judgement", which is one of the reasons to judge something DISMISS. (Not "not able" in the sense of CANNOT; it's just that we're not able (in the ordinary sense of the words) to judge it that way while respecting the rules at the time the CFJ was called.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
Also not really something we can force upon em... Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 1:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do? On 6/20/19 10:47 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for reconsideration or w/e IRRELEVANT or recuse.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do? On 6/20/19 10:47 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for reconsideration or w/e IRRELEVANT or recuse. -- Trigon
DIS: History of "The rules SHALL NOT be interpreted..."
Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way. Before voting on any decisions to change R2125's wording "The rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.", I wanted to understand why it's written that way. (Versus finding some other phrasing that doesn't invoke SHALL NOT, which was, I think already defined to mean "violates the rules" at that time.) So I tracked down the first appearance of those words to Proposal 7614 [0]. Here's what I found, in case others are curious. The proposal makes a lot of changes. Based on a comment in the proposal, I think the sentence was added to replace "right" number (i) that was in R101 at the time: This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein. i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it. I searched just a bit but wasn't able to find much discussion around the time of the proposal. So I guess it is just the wording G. decided to use. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-January/010589.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
Mumbles something about instant-runoff only working for entities and voting [Rule 2125, Agora, G., Aris, Corona]. Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 12:38 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for reconsideration or w/e -- From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
I mean it's totally informal, so I hereby decree instant run-off and vote TRUE, IRRELEVANT On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:38 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS > or > > IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other > > thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands > > behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for > > reconsideration or w/e > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision
If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: > I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL, DISMISS or > IRRELEVANT on CFJ 3737, the subject of so much discussion in the other > thread. This would help to determine which option Agora as a whole stands > behind, so we don;t have to have actual moots or motions for > reconsideration or w/e > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
How about we have a non-binding Agoran decision on this CFJ? To gauge the will of the populace. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:30 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Doesn't judging a CFJ based on what we plan to do after it kind of go > against the idea of "resolve it as if at the time it was created"? > > Also, is it wise to judge CFJs based on political expediency? I do > realize that people just continually voting to overturn judgments isn't > helpful for anyone, but I haven't been broken of my idealism yet. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/20/19 11:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due > to > > the limited number of voting options. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca > wrote: > > > >> why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can > be > >> imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid > contract > >> as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix > proposal > >> > >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > >> > >>> Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file > >>> motions to reconsider? > >>> > >>> Jason Cobb > >>> > >>> On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group > of > players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with > R. Lee on this one so far). > > On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept > > my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so > > as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. > > > > On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly > >> reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. > >> > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > >>> wrote: > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the > facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that > breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say > that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically > apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability > of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, > as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a > logical undecidability. > >>> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > >>> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > >>> > >>> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > >>> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > >>> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > >> > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > >> > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Doesn't judging a CFJ based on what we plan to do after it kind of go against the idea of "resolve it as if at the time it was created"? Also, is it wise to judge CFJs based on political expediency? I do realize that people just continually voting to overturn judgments isn't helpful for anyone, but I haven't been broken of my idealism yet. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to the limited number of voting options. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca wrote: why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file motions to reconsider? Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with R. Lee on this one so far). On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation. -- From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to the limited number of voting options. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca wrote: > why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be > imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract > as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file > > motions to reconsider? > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of > > > players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with > > > R. Lee on this one so far). > > > > > > On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > >> And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept > > >> my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so > > >> as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. > > >> > > >> On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > >>> I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly > > >>> reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. > > >>> > > >>> Jason Cobb > > >>> > > >>> On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > > wrote: > > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the > > > facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that > > > breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say > > > that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically > > > apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability > > > of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, > > > as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a > > > logical undecidability. > > FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > > undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > > > Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > > would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > > still based on the forbidden interpretation. > > >> > > > > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
why don't we just judge this cfj irrelevant because no consequences can be imposed for any crimes anyway, and nobody would sign such a stupid contract as the one at issue here, and then moot the issue by passing a fix proposal On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file > motions to reconsider? > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of > > players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with > > R. Lee on this one so far). > > > > On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >> And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept > >> my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so > >> as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. > >> > >> On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >>> I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly > >>> reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. > >>> > >>> Jason Cobb > >>> > >>> On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > wrote: > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the > > facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that > > breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say > > that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically > > apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability > > of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, > > as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a > > logical undecidability. > FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > still based on the forbidden interpretation. > >> > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file motions to reconsider? Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with R. Lee on this one so far). On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with R. Lee on this one so far). On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Yeah, I’d agree with that. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the judge is doing though. The judge seems to be saying that that interpetation is *correct*, but that e can’t judge the case on that basis. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly > reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > wrote: > >> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of > the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. > > FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > > undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > > > Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > > would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > > still based on the forbidden interpretation. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my original judgement and take the fall for interpreting the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions as they clearly do. On 6/20/19 8:38 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
"The performance of an action" is just a fancy way of saying "doing an action", "the performance" changes nothing in my opinion. "Limit" is sufficiently capacious to say "i'm limiting the performance of this action by saying you are not allowed to be doing that action like that". We do have to use forward and not backwards reasoning but I feel as though ambiguity, given that "limit" does not use an Agoran term of art. And then onto the second step of the test, let's do the one that doesn't break anything. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:31 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its > performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the > performance of an action, I might agree with you. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:28 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > Limit, the first definition off of google > > "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or > > pass." > > > > > > does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly > from > > the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was > > and what it means to do. > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this > > > specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word > that > > > I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. > > > > > > On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > > I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my > > > > interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object > to > > > > whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they > > > > haven't found an actual paradox! > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > > > wrote: > > > >>> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts > > of > > > >> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing > is > > > >> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says > what > > it > > > >> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the > > > same > > > >> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in > > the > > > >> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, > > > and is > > > >> properly considered a logical undecidability. > > > >> > > > >> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > > > >> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > > >> > > > >> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > > > >> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > > > >> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Trigon > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I can find more reputable dictionaries but "limit" is certainly capacious enough to include a prohibition by law. For example if Congress "limits" campaign finance donations, it doesn't physically stops them, it prohibits them. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:30 PM Rebecca wrote: > The definition as verb is to " > set or serve as a limit (the noun) to" so it's just the same > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > >> That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125 >> clearly uses it as a verb. >> >> Jason Cobb >> >> On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> > Limit, the first definition off of google >> > "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or >> > pass." >> > >> > >> > does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly >> from >> > the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent >> was >> > and what it means to do. >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley > > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this >> >> specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word >> that >> >> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. >> >> >> >> On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> >>> I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my >> >>> interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to >> >>> whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they >> >>> haven't found an actual paradox! >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: >> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux >> >> wrote: >> > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts >> of >> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing >> is >> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says >> what it >> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the >> >> same >> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in >> the >> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, >> >> and is >> properly considered a logical undecidability. >> >> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically >> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. >> >> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft >> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is >> still based on the forbidden interpretation. >> >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> Trigon >> >> >> > >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I maintain that a SHALL NOT limits the permissibility of an action, not its performance. If the rule referred to a limit on an action, rather than the performance of an action, I might agree with you. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:28 PM Rebecca wrote: > Limit, the first definition off of google > "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or > pass." > > > does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly from > the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was > and what it means to do. > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this > > specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that > > I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. > > > > On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my > > > interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to > > > whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they > > > haven't found an actual paradox! > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > > wrote: > > >>> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts > of > > >> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > > >> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what > it > > >> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the > > same > > >> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in > the > > >> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, > > and is > > >> properly considered a logical undecidability. > > >> > > >> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > > >> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > >> > > >> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > > >> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > > >> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > > -- > From R. Lee >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
The definition as verb is to " set or serve as a limit (the noun) to" so it's just the same On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125 > clearly uses it as a verb. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > Limit, the first definition off of google > > "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or > > pass." > > > > > > does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly > from > > the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was > > and what it means to do. > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > >> Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this > >> specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that > >> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. > >> > >> On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >>> I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my > >>> interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to > >>> whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they > >>> haven't found an actual paradox! > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: > >>> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > >> wrote: > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts > of > the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what > it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the > >> same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in > the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, > >> and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. > > FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > still based on the forbidden interpretation. > > >>> > >> -- > >> Trigon > >> > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125 clearly uses it as a verb. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: Limit, the first definition off of google "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass." does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly from the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was and what it means to do. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley wrote: Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they haven't found an actual paradox! On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Limit, the first definition off of google "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass." does not = CANNOT, may not = SHALL NOT (or MAY NOT) . It fits directly from the definition and from common sense. and from what the rule's intent was and what it means to do. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:18 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this > specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that > I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. > > On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my > > interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to > > whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they > > haven't found an actual paradox! > > > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux > wrote: > >>> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of > >> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > >> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > >> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the > same > >> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > >> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, > and is > >> properly considered a logical undecidability. > >> > >> FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > >> undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > >> > >> Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > >> would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > >> still based on the forbidden interpretation. > >> > > > > > > -- > Trigon > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Using your interpretation of "limit" would certainly get us out of this specific case, but it would set some ugly precendent about the word that I'm not sure I'm comfortable with. On 6/20/19 6:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they haven't found an actual paradox! On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Hey, I do not object to being granted a win by paradox :P. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they haven't found an actual paradox! On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to whoever called this CFJ being granted a win by paradox, because they haven't found an actual paradox! On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:57 AM omd wrote: > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of > the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. > > FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically > undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. > > Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft > would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is > still based on the forbidden interpretation. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the > case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Whoops sorry, that was non sens On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 7:16 AM Rebecca wrote: > omd found th > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> Nice find - thanks! >> >> On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules" >> means >> > to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and >> thinking, and >> > that to interpret the rules in a formal context is a regulated actions. >> > >> > >> > [0]: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html >> > >> > Jason Cobb >> > >> > On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to >> >> proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as >> proscribing >> >> unregulated actions. >> >> >> >> (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an >> >> unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game). >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
omd found th On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Nice find - thanks! > > On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules" > means > > to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking, > and > > that to interpret the rules in a formal context is a regulated actions. > > > > > > [0]: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to > >> proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as > proscribing > >> unregulated actions. > >> > >> (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an > >> unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game). > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
Nice find - thanks! On 6/20/2019 10:19 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules" means to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking, and that to interpret the rules in a formal context is a regulated actions. [0]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing unregulated actions. (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
omd pointed out this CFJ [0] that decided that "interpeting the rules" means to do it in a formal setting rather than just reading them and thinking, and that to interpret the rules in a formal context is a regulated actions. [0]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing unregulated actions. (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game). On 6/20/2019 6:01 AM, Rebecca wrote: See eg. CFJ 3635 where I held that "allowed" generally means both "CAN" and "MAY" because "allowed" meant to remove the obstacles placed in the way of the said action by the rules, which both impossibility and illegality are. The exact same logic applies to this case, where the rule takes two methods of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a term of art, easily encompasses both. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca wrote: just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote: I offer this proto for comment. *** Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I accept the reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, INSUFFICIENT, and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement of IRRELEVANT because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question about the nature of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a judgement of INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and arguement. That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate judgements. PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically undecidable; DISMISS is appropriate if it is undecidable for another reason. In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." In my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than PARADOXICAL. This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of FALSE. The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore DISMISS). In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. Judged PARADOXICAL. - [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley wrote: I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL way to resolve this. [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does not limit its performance. The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a dictionary to prove such things. To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either - Breathing is a regulated action, or - The contract does not prohibit breathing. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. The contract mandates a
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
Well that makes things simpler... I flip my master switch to myself. If I am obliged to by law, I transfer 11 coins to Agora. From: James Cook Sent: Thursday 20 June, 17:39 Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: I'm broke! To: Agora Business I transfer 11 Coins to Baron von Vaderham.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
It's all one clause? I don't think it can be subdivided into subclauses sensibly. (or am I misunderstanding are you talking about other sentences). On 6/20/2019 9:18 AM, Rebecca wrote: But of course, the latter clause would override the former in a conflict. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing unregulated actions. (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
But of course, the latter clause would override the former in a conflict. On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 2:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to > proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing > unregulated actions. > > (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an > unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game). > > On 6/20/2019 6:01 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > See eg. CFJ 3635 where I held that "allowed" generally means both "CAN" > and > > "MAY" because "allowed" meant to remove the obstacles placed in the way > of > > the said action by the rules, which both impossibility and illegality > are. > > The exact same logic applies to this case, where the rule takes two > methods > > of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a > > term of art, easily encompasses both. > > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca > wrote: > > > >> just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it > >> means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break > the > >> game. > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux > wrote: > >> > >>> I offer this proto for comment. > >>> > >>> *** > >>> > >>> Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be > >>> entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by > Rule > >>> 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not > require me > >>> to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. > >>> > >>> For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT > be > >>> legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I > accept the > >>> reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to > >>> Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] > >>> > >>> There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, > >>> INSUFFICIENT, and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a > judgement > >>> of IRRELEVANT because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question > >>> about the nature of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign > it a > >>> judgement of INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and > >>> arguement. > >>> > >>> That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate > >>> judgements. PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically > >>> undecidable; DISMISS is appropriate if it is undecidable for another > >>> reason. > >>> > >>> In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is > >>> appropriate. > >>> > >>> First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." > In > >>> my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or > >>> IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. > If an > >>> undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or > >>> DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather > than > >>> PARADOXICAL. > >>> > >>> This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in > footnote > >>> 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to > assign it > >>> a judgement of FALSE. > >>> > >>> The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and > >>> therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore > >>> DISMISS). > >>> > >>> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of > >>> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > >>> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what > it > >>> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the > same > >>> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in > the > >>> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, > and is > >>> properly considered a logical undecidability. > >>> > >>> Judged PARADOXICAL. > >>> > >>> - > >>> [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. > On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley > >>> wrote: > > I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL > >>> way to resolve this. > >>> > >>> [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: > >>> > On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley > >>> wrote: > > Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. > > Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, > >>> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract > does > >>> not limit its performance. > > The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a > >>> dictionary to prove such things. > > To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which > >>> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". > > > On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > You have two options that I can see
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing unregulated actions. (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an unregulated fashion, whenever we play the game). On 6/20/2019 6:01 AM, Rebecca wrote: See eg. CFJ 3635 where I held that "allowed" generally means both "CAN" and "MAY" because "allowed" meant to remove the obstacles placed in the way of the said action by the rules, which both impossibility and illegality are. The exact same logic applies to this case, where the rule takes two methods of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a term of art, easily encompasses both. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca wrote: just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote: I offer this proto for comment. *** Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I accept the reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, INSUFFICIENT, and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement of IRRELEVANT because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question about the nature of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a judgement of INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and arguement. That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate judgements. PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically undecidable; DISMISS is appropriate if it is undecidable for another reason. In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." In my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than PARADOXICAL. This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of FALSE. The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore DISMISS). In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. Judged PARADOXICAL. - [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley wrote: I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL way to resolve this. [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does not limit its performance. The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a dictionary to prove such things. To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either - Breathing is a regulated action, or - The contract does not prohibit breathing. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an unregulated action. By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 2152. There really is no way out of this, is there? On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
Correct! Unfortunately there is no remedy for illegal things right now bc
no CHoJ. Soo...shrug?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 12:47 AM James Cook wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber
> wrote:
> > I cfj the following
> >
> > {Baron von Vaderham's bid of 11 coins in the most recent zombie auction
> of June 6th was UNSUCCESSFUL}
> >
> > Argument in favour:
> >
> > Baron von Vaderham possessed 0 coins at the time of the auction, since
> he was fleeced by Rance whilst a zombie.
>
> Is there a Rule that says you can't bid if you don't have the money?
> R2550 (Bidding) says: "A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it
> would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the
> Auction." which, if I understand right, makes your action ILLEGAL if
> can find the money in the next few hours, but not unsuccessful.
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber wrote:
> I cfj the following
>
> {Baron von Vaderham's bid of 11 coins in the most recent zombie auction of
> June 6th was UNSUCCESSFUL}
>
> Argument in favour:
>
> Baron von Vaderham possessed 0 coins at the time of the auction, since he was
> fleeced by Rance whilst a zombie.
Is there a Rule that says you can't bid if you don't have the money?
R2550 (Bidding) says: "A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it
would be impossible for em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the
Auction." which, if I understand right, makes your action ILLEGAL if
can find the money in the next few hours, but not unsuccessful.
DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
On Thu, 20 Jun 2019 at 06:40, David Seeber wrote: > I also cause myself to receive a Welcome pack since I have not received one > since I returned from being a zombie. I don't think you ever stopped being a zombie, so I think this doesn't succeed. You probably want to take advantage of this provision in R2532: "a player CAN always flip eir own master to emself by announcement."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
See eg. CFJ 3635 where I held that "allowed" generally means both "CAN" and "MAY" because "allowed" meant to remove the obstacles placed in the way of the said action by the rules, which both impossibility and illegality are. The exact same logic applies to this case, where the rule takes two methods of "limiting" actions, impossibility and illegality. Limit, not being a term of art, easily encompasses both. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 10:53 PM Rebecca wrote: > just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it > means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the > game. > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote: > >> I offer this proto for comment. >> >> *** >> >> Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be >> entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule >> 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me >> to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. >> >> For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be >> legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I accept the >> reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to >> Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] >> >> There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, >> INSUFFICIENT, and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement >> of IRRELEVANT because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question >> about the nature of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a >> judgement of INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and >> arguement. >> >> That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate >> judgements. PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically >> undecidable; DISMISS is appropriate if it is undecidable for another >> reason. >> >> In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is >> appropriate. >> >> First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." In >> my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or >> IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an >> undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or >> DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than >> PARADOXICAL. >> >> This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote >> 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it >> a judgement of FALSE. >> >> The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and >> therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore >> DISMISS). >> >> In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of >> the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is >> prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it >> says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same >> formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the >> formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is >> properly considered a logical undecidability. >> >> Judged PARADOXICAL. >> >> - >> [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. >> > On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley >> wrote: >> > >> > I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL >> way to resolve this. >> >> [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: >> >> > On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley >> wrote: >> > >> > Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. >> > >> > Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, >> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does >> not limit its performance. >> > >> > The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a >> dictionary to prove such things. >> > >> > To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which >> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". >> > >> >> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> >> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). >> Either >> >> - Breathing is a regulated action, or >> >> - The contract does not prohibit breathing. >> >> Jason Cobb >> >>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >> >>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. >> >>> >> >>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated >> actions. >> >>> >> >>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an >> unregulated action. >> >>> >> >>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion >> that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule >> 2152. >> >>> >> >>> There really is no way out of this, is there? >> >>> >> > On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> > >> > On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
just hold that to limit encompasses SHALL NOT, that's clearly what it means and it fits well within the confines of "limit" and doesn't break the game. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:58 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I offer this proto for comment. > > *** > > Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be > entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule > 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me > to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. > > For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be > legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I accept the > reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to > Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] > > There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, INSUFFICIENT, > and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement of IRRELEVANT > because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question about the nature > of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a judgement of > INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and arguement. > > That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate judgements. > PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically undecidable; DISMISS is > appropriate if it is undecidable for another reason. > > In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is > appropriate. > > First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." In > my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or > IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an > undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or > DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than > PARADOXICAL. > > This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote > 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it > a judgement of FALSE. > > The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and > therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore > DISMISS). > > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the > case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability. > > Judged PARADOXICAL. > > - > [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley > wrote: > > > > I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL > way to resolve this. > > [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: > > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. > > > > Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, > enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does > not limit its performance. > > > > The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a > dictionary to prove such things. > > > > To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which > might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". > > > >> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). > Either > >> - Breathing is a regulated action, or > >> - The contract does not prohibit breathing. > >> Jason Cobb > >>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > >>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. > >>> > >>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. > >>> > >>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an > unregulated action. > >>> > >>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion > that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule > 2152. > >>> > >>> There really is no way out of this, is there? > >>> > > On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, > assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN perform > an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform. > > From the dictionary I get: > > Proscribe - > forbid, especially by law. > synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, > veto, > make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo > "gambling was proscribed" > > Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for > SHALL > NOT in R2152, that's
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
I offer this proto for comment. *** Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE. In particular, I accept the reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to Judge Trigon's recusal.[2] There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, INSUFFICIENT, and PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement of IRRELEVANT because the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question about the nature of regulated actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a judgement of INSUFFICIENT because it comes with adequate evidence and arguement. That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate judgements. PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically undecidable; DISMISS is appropriate if it is undecidable for another reason. In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable." In my view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or IMPOSSIBLE for the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an undecidable case is appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, then the judge SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than PARADOXICAL. This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote 2, it is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of FALSE. The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore DISMISS). In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a logical undecidability. Judged PARADOXICAL. - [1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. > On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley wrote: > > I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL way to > resolve this. [2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: > On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Both can be easily proven factually incorrect. > > Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, enable, > or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does not limit > its performance. > > The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a dictionary > to prove such things. > > To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which might > in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking". > >> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: >> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either >> - Breathing is a regulated action, or >> - The contract does not prohibit breathing. >> Jason Cobb >>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: >>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. >>> >>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions. >>> >>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an unregulated >>> action. >>> >>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion that >>> the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 2152. >>> >>> There really is no way out of this, is there? >>> > On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, > assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN > perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform. From the dictionary I get: Proscribe - forbid, especially by law. synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto, make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo "gambling was proscribed" Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me. > > -- > Trigon
DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 11:40 PM David Seeber wrote: > I also cause myself to receive a Welcome pack since I have not received one > since I returned from being a zombie. Welcome back, by the way.
DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!
This CFJ shouldn't be a CFJ, just find the messages where this happened or
self-ratifying reports making Baron have 0 coins at the time e bid, and
then draw that to the attention of the auctioneer and treasuror. Making the
judge do that wastes their time.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:40 PM David Seeber
wrote:
> I cfj the following
>
> {Baron von Vaderham's bid of 11 coins in the most recent zombie auction of
> June 6th was UNSUCCESSFUL}
>
> Argument in favour:
>
> Baron von Vaderham possessed 0 coins at the time of the auction, since he
> was fleeced by Rance whilst a zombie.
>
>
>
> I also cause myself to receive a Welcome pack since I have not received
> one since I returned from being a zombie.
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (revised)
It wasn't a claim of error, so don't claim money for this! On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:06 PM James Cook wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 at 01:16, Jason Cobb wrote: > > This is wrong, but I don't know if it counts because it is in a purely > > informational section: > > > > > Jason Cobb + 2c. 2019-06-12 06:00 Transfer to Aris > > > Aris - 2c. 2019-06-12 06:00 Transfer to Jason Cobb > > I have transferred no coins to Aris, though e has transferred some to me. > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/18/19 9:14 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > Jason Cobb + 2c. 2019-06-12 06:00 Transfer to Aris > > > Aris - 2c. 2019-06-12 06:00 Transfer to Jason Cobb > > Thanks for the correction. That part does not self-ratify, so I don't > think it would mess up the game state. > > Still, in case your message is a claim of error, I respond to it by > publishing the below revised report. > > > Forbes 500 > > > This is a revision of the 2019-06-19 Treasuror weekly report. It > describes the state of the game at the time the original report was > published, which is 2019-06-19 at 01:14 UTC. > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-06-19 > Date of last weekly report: 2019-06-11 > > 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 > 159Aris > 30Bernie > 74CuddleBeam > 1024D. Margaux > 277Falsifian > 726G. > 90Gaelan > 118Jacob Arduino > 17Jason Cobb > 192Murphy >0o > 131omd > 19R. Lee > 66Rance > 455Trigon > 822twg > 14Walker > >CoinsZombie >--- > 40Corona > 10Hālian > 10L > 40Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 10Tarhalindur >0Telnaior > >CoinsNon-player entity >-- > 1207Agora > 87Lost and Found Department > 20Reformed Church [1] > > > PERFORMANCES OF THE RITUAL > > Unofficial section. Does not self-ratify. > > Week Performer Notes > - -- -- > 2019-04-22..28 D. Margaux Aris 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 > (same) D. Margaux Member of the Church of the Ritual > > > RECENT HISTORY > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Entity Change Date (UTC)Reason > > G. + 5c. 2019-06-18 08:00 Reward (Arbitor weekly) > D. Margaux + 5c. 2019-06-18 12:21 Reward (Referee weekly) > G. + 5c. 2019-06-18 01:28 Reward (re-judging CFJ 3733) > omd + 5c. 2019-06-17 04:43 Reward (re-judging CFJ 3736) > Trigon + 5c. 2019-06-16 20:45 Reward (judging CFJ 3737) > Trigon + 5c. 2019-06-16 20:45 Reward (Rulekeepor monthly) > Trigon + 5c. 2019-06-16 20:45 Reward (Rulekeepor weekly) > omd + 5c. 2019-06-15 03:04 Reward (judging CFJ 3736) > R. Lee + 5c. 2019-06-14 23:12 Reward (judging CFJ 3734) > D. Margaux + 5c. 2019-06-13 16:20 Reward (judging CFJ 3730) > G. + 5c. 2019-06-13 16:14 Reward (judging CFJ 3733) > D. Margaux - 7c. 2019-06-13 11:09 Fee to perform The Ritual > D. Margaux + 5c. 2019-06-12 20:19 Reward (Referee weekly) > Aris + 5c. 2019-06-12 06:03 Reward (Promotor weekly) > Jason Cobb + 2c. 2019-06-12 06:00 Transfer from Aris > Aris - 2c. 2019-06-12 06:00 Transfer to Jason Cobb > G. + 5c. 2019-06-11 22:04 Reward (Arbitor weekly) >
