date:20200702

2020-07-02 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion

On 7/2/2020 2:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:

On 7/2/2020 11:05 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

Thank you for the input. I will definitely take a closer look at those
previous cases and incorporate them into my judgement. It's my bad for
not at least briefly looking for previous precedents. If someone finds
that other successful hidden message from 2018, I will incorporate that too.

Found it. And it's ... somewhat unhelpful.

Sending to BUS to make it formally "gratuitous" and put the messages in
evidence:

Hidden intent message forwarded in full when the action was actually
performed:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039325.html

(shorter report, but payload lines are even more hidden within the report
- see if you can find without peeking at the answer).

found it :)

CFJ was 3670, called here but with no Caller's Arguments:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039327.html

Judged here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039452.html

And unfortunately, by that time it looks like everyone pretty much
accepted that the hidden message was fine, and the arguments were all
about a contract thing that might have been wrong. Here's what that
CFJ 3670 judgement says about clarity:

As the intent was
published to a public forum, e had given sufficient notice, and the
intent, although it followed a quoted statement, was not buried, the
condition is fulfilled and e did, in fact, perform the three given
actions.

So the judge says that intent was "not buried" (though to me it looks
pretty buried!)

So where this sort of thing got judged or entered custom to count for our
version of "clear" is still a mystery. So at this point, I'm honestly
happy if the judge just mentions "this sort of thing worked before, but
the precedents are confused and let's look at it fresh" or "this one was
*extremely* buried" with maybe a quickie comparison between the actual
past hidden messages (not worrying much more what the past judgements
thought).

I will make sure to look at the CFJs first, but it's likely that this is
what I will do.

--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: R2472 Question: Incompatibility between Assessor and Associate Director of Personnel

2020-07-02 Thread Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion

On 7/2/2020 11:21 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I was looking at Rule 2472, and I'm confused by the incompatibility of
> the Assessor and the Associate Director of Personnel. At no place in the
> ruleset can I find a conflict of interest between the two offices. Did
> one previously exist or am I missing something now? If not, I plan to
> remove that.
> 

Election procedure used to read "if the election is for ADoP, the Assessor
is the vote collector" because the vote collector gets to break ties.
(this may have been quite relevant in the most recent ADoP election!  But
the text is gone now it seems).

-G.

DIS: R2472 Question: Incompatibility between Assessor and Associate Director of Personnel


Rule 2472/4 (Power=2)
Office Incompatibilities

  Some pairs of office are incompatible:

  1. Prime Minister and Speaker

  2. Promotor and Assessor

  3. Assessor and ADoP

  4. Referee and Arbitor

  A player is Overpowered if e holds two offices which are
  incompatible with each other. Rules to the contrary
  notwithstanding, a player CANNOT be installed into an office if
  doing so would make em Overpowered.

  A zombie is Overpowered if e holds one or more offices.

  If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN, with Notice, Demand
  Resignation from em. When this occurs, each office that the
  Overpowered player holds becomes vacant.



I was looking at Rule 2472, and I'm confused by the incompatibility of
the Assessor and the Associate Director of Personnel. At no place in the
ruleset can I find a conflict of interest between the two offices. Did
one previously exist or am I missing something now? If not, I plan to
remove that.
-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860


Yeah, I will do that. See my reply to G.'s reply.

On 7/2/2020 2:03 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/2/20 12:40 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

I have put together my judgement for CFJ 3860 [assuming that is the
number it will be assigned by the CotC]. I am mainly publishing this as
a draft and not an official judgement because I want to wait for
confirmation that it is actually CFJ 3860. Unless someone finds a major
issue with my logic, I will leave the judgement as is.

FWIW I think what you have makes sense but since variations of this
topic have been discussed in previous CFJs this would be much stronger
if you incorporated them. Either to explain how they support your
ruling, why this situation is different than those, or why you think the
precedent doesn't apply/should be overturned. That would make this a
much more convincing ruling overall.



--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860

On 7/2/2020 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:

On 7/2/2020 10:40 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

I have put together my judgement for CFJ 3860 [assuming that is the
number it will be assigned by the CotC]. I am mainly publishing this as
a draft and not an official judgement because I want to wait for
confirmation that it is actually CFJ 3860. Unless someone finds a major
issue with my logic, I will leave the judgement as is.

This ignores a body of precedents on the issue, unfortunately. Regardless
of outcome, would likely appeal anything that didn't cover some of those
old decisions and explain the difference a bit. I've been going through
some of the 2018 cfjs not in the database, and am sorry they're not there
(was hoping the assignment would be delayed a bit, not your fault there).
The two R. Lee posted earlier are important ones though:

3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that
putting it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far.

The 3667 attempt that worked:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html

The 3676 that failed:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039261.html

There was a successful hidden message that happened later in 2018 (that
hid things in a very long report) that I'm looking for now. Without
assembling these somewhat more, we just have a bunch of contradictory
judgements about the word "clear" and no overall look at the batch.

-G.

--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860

On 7/2/20 12:40 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> I have put together my judgement for CFJ 3860 [assuming that is the
> number it will be assigned by the CotC]. I am mainly publishing this as
> a draft and not an official judgement because I want to wait for
> confirmation that it is actually CFJ 3860. Unless someone finds a major
> issue with my logic, I will leave the judgement as is.
FWIW I think what you have makes sense but since variations of this 
topic have been discussed in previous CFJs this would be much stronger 
if you incorporated them. Either to explain how they support your 
ruling, why this situation is different than those, or why you think the 
precedent doesn't apply/should be overturned. That would make this a 
much more convincing ruling overall.

Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860

2020-07-02 Thread Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion

On 7/2/2020 10:40 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> I have put together my judgement for CFJ 3860 [assuming that is the
> number it will be assigned by the CotC]. I am mainly publishing this as
> a draft and not an official judgement because I want to wait for
> confirmation that it is actually CFJ 3860. Unless someone finds a major
> issue with my logic, I will leave the judgement as is.

This ignores a body of precedents on the issue, unfortunately. Regardless
of outcome, would likely appeal anything that didn't cover some of those
old decisions and explain the difference a bit.   I've been going through
some of the 2018 cfjs not in the database, and am sorry they're not there
(was hoping the assignment would be delayed a bit, not your fault there).
The two R. Lee posted earlier are important ones though:

3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that
putting it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far.

The 3667 attempt that worked:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html

The 3676 that failed:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039261.html

There was a successful hidden message that happened later in 2018 (that
hid things in a very long report) that I'm looking for now.  Without
assembling these somewhat more, we just have a bunch of contradictory
judgements about the word "clear" and no overall look at the batch.

-G.

DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860


I have put together my judgement for CFJ 3860 [assuming that is the
number it will be assigned by the CotC]. I am mainly publishing this as
a draft and not an official judgement because I want to wait for
confirmation that it is actually CFJ 3860. Unless someone finds a major
issue with my logic, I will leave the judgement as is.


=== CFJ: “G. cast a valid ballot on Proposal 8458.” 


Judge's Arguments:

tl;dr: Hiding a ballot 500 lines into a report with no indication that
there's a ballot there is not very "clear". FALSE.

In the message in question, G. attempted to vote on Proposal 8458. E
quoted the (very long) Herald's report, with the following text on lines
574-576:

This is a break in the quoted portion of this message.
I, G., vote FOR the referendum on Proposal Eight Four Five Eight.
You are now returned to the quoted portion of this message.

It was clearly intended to be hidden so as to not be noticed by the
average player. The message also contained an obvious Notice of Honour
at the top. Unless a player is suspecting something, e would likely see
that and assume there were no other actions in the message.

As per the caller's arguments and prior discussion, this obviously does
not constitute a conspicuous attempt at voting. The question, then, is
whether it is "clear." In fact, this is really the only question
involved, as the Agoran rules for submitting a ballot do not actually
use the word "conspicuous." The conditions for publishing a valid
ballot, from rule 683, are as follows:

  1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
 decision.

  2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
 initiation of the decision, a player.

  3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.

  4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
 the voting method.

  5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
 the identified vote.

  6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.

#1-#4 and #6 are all satisfied without question. The issue is #5. Did G.
clearly set forth eir intent to place the identified vote?

This comes down to the definition of "clear" again. From the caller's
arguments:


"For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is:

1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.

However, the ballot in question went out of its way to make it hard for
players to perceive it, or understand or interpret that it was a
ballot."


The message certainly did try to make it hard for players to perceive
it. One could disagree with the second half of the statement, as it is
easy to understand and interpret that it was a ballot - but only if it
is perceived. Let us look at another definition of clear.

Merriam-Webster defines "clear" the following way:

3a : easily heard
  "a loud and clear sound"
 b : easily visible : plain
  "a clear signal"
 c : free from obscurity or ambiguity : easily understood : unmistakable
  "a clear explanation"

The ballot is certainly not easily visible or plain. It is not free from
obscurity, nor is it unmistakable. Even if you were to disagree and
claim that the ballot complies with some parts of or some definitions of
clear, one would agree that does not satisfy enough of the definition to
truly be clear.

Concerning the second piece of evidence provider by the caller (see
below): I would say that it is over-exaggerating the situation somewhat,
but it gets the point across. A notice, however clear the notice itself
may be, if it is hidden in an obscure place, does not do much good at
all. If Arthur had said, somewhere visible to all, "hey, I put a notice
on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused
lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard,'" though
it would be inconvenient, the notice would have still been useful.

Likewise, if G. had placed a piece of text near the top of the message
saying something to the effect of "there is a ballot lower down in this
message," then despite the text being hidden, it would be easily
understood that one should look there, therefore it would be clear.
However, e made no such mention (that would have defeated the purpose of
eir ballot).

Therefore, I find CFJ 3860 to be FALSE.



Caller's Arguments:

Although “clear and conspicuous” is a common legal term, I consider it 
at least

partly a legal doublet, like “null and void”.  It may be possible to be
conspicuous without being clear, but it is much more questionable whether
something can be clear without being conspicuous.

For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is:

1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.

However,

Re: DIS: art degrees

2020-07-02 Thread Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion

On 7/2/2020 8:18 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 7/2/20 10:14 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> One strange thing here is that Bard is mixed in with a long list of
>> other titles in R2581, but (from this point of view) is arguably more
>> similar to degrees than those other titles.
>>
>> Also, I recently noticed the description of Bard says it's for
>> *repeated*  creative wit or poetry. Though I think we recently awarded
>> it for a single work.
> 
> I was wondering about this too. A bard or a poet laureate irl is someone 
> who continually creates/performs. A B.A. is more for someone who has 
> shown a certain level of mastery over the ability to do so, but doesn't 
> necessarily do it regularly. I don't know if Agora wants or cares about 
> such a distinction.
> 

At the time Bard was written (that was my first ever proposal, yay!) the
Herald didn't have the generic ability to award titles w/ 2 Agoran consent
- Agoran consent didn't even exist.  Only defined ones could be awarded
each with its own award conditions.  A bit more like straight-up win
conditions than a consent process.

Bard was the only type of Patent Title that could be awarded by some level
of Support (support seen like applause).  In practice, it was awarded
after a good performance made someone say "bravo, make this person a
Bard!" but usually that was accompanied by "because e's also done other
art it's not a one-off thing" so there was some notion of it being sort of
a role/job (this is when we had Roles as well so it fit in with that).  To
emphasize it as an ongoing guild, Bards needed less support to name new Bards.

Degrees at the time had a full academic process:  the grad student picked
a Chair who assembled a three-person committee who did the review and
recommended a degree.

-G.

Original Bard text from R1922/4:

  (c)  A Patent Title (non-unique) now will
   Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit.
   In order for one Title to be filled,
   A level of Support must call for it.

   Three players to a fourth may grant this name
   If these three write as 1, with 2 Support.
   A current Bard may also grant the same,
   Provided that a second Bard's a sport.

   And so we don't the name of Bard debase,
   A Player with 3 Supporters can conspire
   To (from a Bard), this Title to erase:
   Or Bard (plus 2 Bards) make a Bard retire.

   But lest we ruin some poor minstrel's fun
   No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun.

Re: DIS: art degrees

2020-07-02 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion

On 7/2/20 10:14 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> One strange thing here is that Bard is mixed in with a long list of
> other titles in R2581, but (from this point of view) is arguably more
> similar to degrees than those other titles.
>
> Also, I recently noticed the description of Bard says it's for
> *repeated*  creative wit or poetry. Though I think we recently awarded
> it for a single work.

I was wondering about this too. A bard or a poet laureate irl is someone 
who continually creates/performs. A B.A. is more for someone who has 
shown a certain level of mastery over the ability to do so, but doesn't 
necessarily do it regularly. I don't know if Agora wants or cares about 
such a distinction.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: art degrees

2020-07-02 Thread James Cook via agora-discussion

On Thu, 2 Jul 2020 at 14:15, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 7/1/20 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's
> > more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard?  (just in general).
> >
> > longer:
> >
> > I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees
> > are kind of how we used to award Bard.  A person produces Good Art, and by
> > acclaim they are awarded Bard.
> >
> > I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems
> > a bit stuffy for art.  Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and
> > academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not
> > the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of
> > performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in
> > your rhyme scheme" and publish it again.  Better for people to applaud and
> > say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and
> > part of the performance."
> >
> > So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general
> > feedback first.
> >
> > -G.
> >
>
> My thinking here is that people can choose which to use. If someone
> doesn't want to use peer review, e can state that and I'll try to give
> em the Bard, but if e wants a degree, e has to go through peer review.
> This is similar to the difference between being recognized for good art
> by a professional association and being granted an MFA.

One strange thing here is that Bard is mixed in with a long list of
other titles in R2581, but (from this point of view) is arguably more
similar to degrees than those other titles.

Also, I recently noticed the description of Bard says it's for
*repeated* creative wit or poetry. Though I think we recently awarded
it for a single work.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: art degrees

On 7/1/20 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> 
> tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's
> more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard?  (just in general).
> 
> longer:
> 
> I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees
> are kind of how we used to award Bard.  A person produces Good Art, and by
> acclaim they are awarded Bard.
> 
> I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems
> a bit stuffy for art.  Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and
> academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not
> the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of
> performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in
> your rhyme scheme" and publish it again.  Better for people to applaud and
> say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and
> part of the performance."
> 
> So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general
> feedback first.
> 
> -G.
> 

My thinking here is that people can choose which to use. If someone
doesn't want to use peer review, e can state that and I'll try to give
em the Bard, but if e wants a degree, e has to go through peer review.
This is similar to the difference between being recognized for good art
by a professional association and being granted an MFA.

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

On 7/2/20 4:21 AM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> Arguments:
>
> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>
>> I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
>> products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears.  You didn’t
> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that
> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”.  That equates “those cards”
> with “4 sets of 4”.
They were paid, not transferred. I would not expect someone to specify 
"I have $20. I take 18 out of that and break that into 3 sets of 6." 
instead of "I have $20. I give 3 people $6 each."
>
> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this
> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
> fee.  I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee,
> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.
This might frustrate you but it would not be necessarily illegal. Nor is 
it relevant to Agora.
>> this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
>> harmful to gameplay.
> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.
And therefore, your CFJ is frivolous. There's plenty of context in that 
message.
>   It’s not at
> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying the
> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more
> wiggle room for ambiguity.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8459-8472

2020-07-02 Thread Jason Cobb via agora-discussion

On 7/1/20 11:59 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:
>> 8462*  Jason, Falsifian 3.0   Fee-based methods
> AGAINST, because the last paragraph is scammable as a power escalation


You appear to be right, but that's also a problem with current rule:

>   If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified set of
>   assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
>   announcement, but the announcement must include that there is an
>   (empty or 0) fee for the action.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

On 7/1/20 11:43 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:

> at 7:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business
> [](mailto:agora-busin...@agoranomic.org)
> wrote:
>
>> {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
>> Lee. I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
>> card and a justice card to nch.}
>>
>> I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total.
>> Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
>>
>> I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into products
>> in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
>
> CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s
> behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or
> 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory.

Arguments:

This isn't self contradictory. It might be a little confusing on the surface 
but it's clearly possible to use 4 sets of 4 out of 18 total. E didn't claim to 
use all of them, or that there would be none left.

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3851 Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

this judgement is currently vacated due to the motion to reconsider,  just
to note for the class.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:36 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
> (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
>
> ===  CFJ 3851  ===
>
>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
>   evidence.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:G.
> Barred:R. Lee
>
> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Judgement: TRUE
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  20 Jun 2020 00:26:04
> Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:   26 Jun 2020 15:49:22
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> R. Lee wrote:
> > I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
> > inconsequential way:
> > Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
> > "Meep"
>
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> In reference to:
>   Attempting a forbidden action is PROHIBITED, and is the Class-4
>   Crime of Engaging in Forbidden Arts.
>
> We never really define "attempt" though we use it a lot in the rules.
> Generally, if you begin the prerequisites of a process to do something
> (i.e. announcing intent to perform an action in a legal way that begins a
> waiting period) a person would say you're "attempting" to do it.  ("What
> was that announcement for?"  "oh, e's attempting to win by apathy").
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by R. Lee:
>
> Merely thinking and planning to commit murder isn't attempted murder, the
> acts carried out have to be "more than merely preparatory" (under English
> law). The same applies to this analogous crime, merely preparing to take
> the ossifying action is not an attempt; attempt is actually doing an action
> (even if that action fails, as it would ossify Agora).
>
> The thing my proposal had to do with it was that it removed the bit that
> said "intending to do a forbidden art is a crime" (or whatever). For what
> it's worth under the common sense factors, the fact that making a formal
> intent to do an action that would ossify the game was specifically removed
> from the rule means that it is unlikely the rule is meant to still
> criminalize it.
>
> rules tend to think intending anything you want is okay and criminalizing
> formal intent is bad, see the No Faking rule (exempting intent)
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous response by G.:
>
> I submit, m'lud, that the fact that my learned opponent believed the
> concept of "intent" was in the previous rule version shows that "attempt",
> in a natural sense, coveys the sense of intent in the (unremoved) text.
>
> --
>
> Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus' Arguments:
>
> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
>
> [0]https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/attempt
> [1] "attempt." In **A Dictionary of Law**, edited by Law, Jonathan. :
> Oxford University Press, 2018.
> [2]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attempt#legalDictionary
>
> ==
>
>

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

2020-07-02 Thread Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion

the fact that you were mathematically confused by "4 sets of 4" doesn't
really mean that it's confusing

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> Reading it initially, I was a bit confused by how the math worked out and
> I do think it could have been sufficiently ambiguous to cause it to fail.
>
> > On Jul 2, 2020, at 08:34, Becca Lee via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > 
> >>
> >> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at
> >> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
> >
> > But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the
> actual
> > words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys
> what
> > I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your
> > argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't
> know
> > 4x4.
> >
> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
>  I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times
> >> total.
>  Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
> 
>  I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
> >>> products
>  in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
> >>
> >> "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't
> say
> >> "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that
> nch
> >> had, rather than any other group of cards.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion <
> >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Arguments:
> >>>
> >>> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
> >>>  wrote:
> >>>
>  I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
>  products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
> >>>
> >>> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears.  You
> >>> didn’t
> >>> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
> >>> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just
> that
> >>> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”.  That equates “those
> >>> cards”
> >>> with “4 sets of 4”.
> >>>
> >>> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for
> >>> this
> >>> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
> >>> fee.  I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the
> >>> fee,
> >>> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the
> installments.
> >>>
>  this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
>  harmful to gameplay.
> >>>
> >>> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not
> at
> >>> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
> >>> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying
> >>> the
> >>> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be
> more
> >>> wiggle room for ambiguity.)
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From R. Lee
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

Reading it initially, I was a bit confused by how the math worked out and I do 
think it could have been sufficiently ambiguous to cause it to fail.

> On Jul 2, 2020, at 08:34, Becca Lee via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at
>> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
> 
> But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the actual
> words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys what
> I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your
> argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't know
> 4x4.
> 
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee  wrote:
>> 
>> 
 I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times
>> total.
 Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
 
 I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
>>> products
 in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
>> 
>> "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say
>> "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch
>> had, rather than any other group of cards.
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Arguments:
>>> 
>>> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
 I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
 products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
>>> 
>>> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears.  You
>>> didn’t
>>> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
>>> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that
>>> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”.  That equates “those
>>> cards”
>>> with “4 sets of 4”.
>>> 
>>> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for
>>> this
>>> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
>>> fee.  I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the
>>> fee,
>>> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.
>>> 
 this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
 harmful to gameplay.
>>> 
>>> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at
>>> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
>>> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying
>>> the
>>> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more
>>> wiggle room for ambiguity.)
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From R. Lee
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at
>all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.

But if what I said is "obvious", and all the context you have is the actual
words I used in the message, what i said automatically clearly conveys what
I meant. that's literally how language works! the only way for your
argument to be successful is if it is remotely possible that I didn't know
4x4.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:30 PM Becca Lee  wrote:

>
> > > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times
> total.
> > > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
> > >
> > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
> > products
> > > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
>
> "those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say
> "all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch
> had, rather than any other group of cards.
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> Arguments:
>>
>> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
>> > products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
>>
>> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears.  You
>> didn’t
>> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
>> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that
>> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”.  That equates “those
>> cards”
>> with “4 sets of 4”.
>>
>> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for
>> this
>> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
>> fee.  I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the
>> fee,
>> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.
>>
>> > this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
>> > harmful to gameplay.
>>
>> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at
>> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
>> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying
>> the
>> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more
>> wiggle room for ambiguity.)
>>
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

> > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times total.
> > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
> >
> > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
> products
> > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.

"those cards" are the cards nch had, which was more than 16. i didn't say
"all of those cards". i was just referring to the group of cards that nch
had, rather than any other group of cards.

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:22 PM omd via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Arguments:
>
> at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>
> > I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
> > products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
>
> Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears.  You
> didn’t
> say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or
> that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that
> you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”.  That equates “those
> cards”
> with “4 sets of 4”.
>
> As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this
> service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire
> fee.  I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee,
> and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.
>
> > this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
> > harmful to gameplay.
>
> It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at
> all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.
> (You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying
> the
> action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more
> wiggle room for ambiguity.)
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

2020-07-02 Thread omd via agora-discussion


Arguments:

at 12:43 AM, Becca Lee via agora-discussion  
 wrote:



I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.


Your rephrased version is still self-contradictory to my ears.  You didn’t  
say that you transferred 4 sets of 4 'out of' or ‘from’ those cards, or  
that you transferred 16 of the cards in 4 sets of 4, etc., but just that  
you transferred "those cards" “in 4 sets of 4”.  That equates “those cards”  
with “4 sets of 4”.


As an analogy, if an advertisement promised I could “pay the fee for this  
service in 4 installments of $40”, I would expect $160 to be the entire  
fee.  I would be quite dismayed to hear that it was only part of the fee,  
and there was also, say, a $20 surcharge not included in the installments.



this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
harmful to gameplay.


It's obvious what you meant, at least given enough context.  It’s not at  
all obvious to me that what you said is close enough to what you meant.   
(You are lucky, however, that the “unambiguously and clearly specifying the  
action” standard from R478 seems to not apply here, so there may be more  
wiggle room for ambiguity.)

Re: DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway

this is so extremely obvious that you calling a CFJ on it is actually
harmful to gameplay.

Also regarding the what is clearly thing, see these CFJs (this is a copiedm
essage from discord, putting ito n list.

3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that putting
it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far. The 3667 attempt that
worked:
[17:04]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html
[17:05]
The 3676 that failed:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039261.html
[17:05]
Those judgements are short and referred to other ones around the same time




On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 5:44 PM Becca Lee via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I clearly meant that i transfer the cards nch had, "those cards" into
> products in 4 sets of 4. obviously i did not mean that 18 is 4x4.
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 2:44 PM omd via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > at 7:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
> > > Lee. I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory
> > > card and a justice card to nch.}
> > >
> > > I repeat the above actions in braces so that they happen 16 times
> total.
> > > Nch has 18 victory cards and 18 justice cards.
> > >
> > > I act on nch’s behalf to pay those victory and justice cards into
> > products
> > > in 4 sets of 4 so that e has 40 victory points and 40 Blot-B-Gones.
> >
> > CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s
> > behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or
> > 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory.
> >
> > Evidence: The above quote.
> >
> > Supposing it was unsuccessful, then...
> >
> > > I act
> > > on nch’s behalf to transfer 40 victory points to myself  and 40
> > > Blot-B-Gones to myself. (I now have 0 blots and 40 blot-b-gones). I
> > expunge
> > > 40 blots from myself.  I am now Pure and I own over 20 more points than
> > any
> > > other player.  I win the game by announcement.  All cards and products
> > are
> > > destroyed, then one of each card is created in each player’s
> possession.
> >
> > ...all of the above also fails...
> >
> > > There are still 24 intents left. I give myself 40 blots.
> >
> > …but this succeeds, leaving R. Lee with 80 Blots.
> >
> > > {Acting on behalf of nch, I resolve one of eir intents to deregister R.
> > > Lee.
> > >
> > > I register. I award myself a welcome package. I transfer a victory card
> > and
> > > a justice card to nch.}
> > >
> > > I repeat the above actions in braces enough so that they happen 24
> times
> > > total. Nch now has 25 justice cards and 25 victory cards. I act on
> behalf
> > > of nch to pay those cards in 6 sets of 4 to make 60 Blot-B-Gone and 60
> > > Victory Points.
> >
> > This would fail for the same reason as the last one.
> >
> > > I act on nch’s behalf to transfer those assets to myself.
> >
> > And this would also fail.
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway