DIS: Re: BUS: Herald polling honor

2019-07-21 Thread Rebecca
Very much worth keeping imo, but maybe it should have consequences like a win at some point - once a year maybe? On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:25 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > I actually rather like the system, it's just hard to remember to do > anything with it. It's also sometimes difficult to find

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!

2019-07-18 Thread Rebecca
ha when do we ever On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/17/2019 11:12 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting > > attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. > > W

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy!

2019-07-18 Thread Rebecca
it just encourages people to make completely frivolous and uninteresting attempts for free wins without having to do actual game mechanics. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 4:11 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 15:24 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214

2019-07-17 Thread Rebecca
you absolutely can! we are not the typo police. On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:52 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm not sure that I can count this as AGAINST. You might want to > withdraw and resubmit the ballot. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/18/19 12:31 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > >> 8205 R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3755 Assigned to Murphy

2019-07-17 Thread Rebecca
G. reassigned this CFJ to emself so its no longer yours to judge On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:37 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > > === CFJ 3755 > === > > > >The time window of R. Lee's Oath to vote against certain proposals > >is

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214

2019-07-16 Thread Rebecca
I vote as follows and act on Halian's behalf to make em vote to endorse R. Lee > 8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial FOR > 8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2) FOR > 8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards FOR > 8191A R. Lee 1.1

DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship

2019-07-14 Thread Rebecca
Unfortunately, nch, you are literally the only person with a spaceship right now On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:04 AM nch wrote: > It appears my registration causes me to own a spaceship, and G has > caused me to have 10 coins. It's also not clear what the default of the > armour value is. If my

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: missing time window

2019-07-13 Thread Rebecca
logize to em if this is not in > fact the case. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 9:49 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > > I create and pend the following proposal > > > > Title: SMH @ Herald > > AI: 1 > > Text: 1. Halve (rounding towards 0) the Karma of

Re: DIS: Zombies and fee-based actions

2019-07-13 Thread Rebecca
by precedent you can do anything like that on behalf of a zombie including just making a post to a public forum On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:28 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I just noticed that, according to R2579/0: > > To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is >

Re: DIS: On the GitHub org

2019-07-12 Thread Rebecca
I've never coded a day in my life, so no GitHub for my offices ever, I'm afraid. On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I see. Thank you! :) > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/12/19 9:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > We do trust you, and it would be great to keep Agoran stuff consolidated.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal

2019-07-10 Thread Rebecca
Doing it by proposal is better for two reasons, one I get moneeey and two I think ratifying something objectively untrue should only be done in real emergencies, which is not so here On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 9:22 AM Rebecca wrote: > I retract the second "spaceships" > > O

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2019-07-10 Thread Rebecca
I'd be happy to weigh in but I note that I have made my opinion pretty clear, so. I haven't gotten a cfj in a while. maybe it's because my judgements are never clear xD On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 9:56 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I rescue from these two CFJs. Although I believe my reasoning was

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [dicelog] [Deputy-ADoP] Selection of Comptrollor

2019-07-09 Thread Rebecca
that was a srs question On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:24 AM Rebecca wrote: > well i mean i can only veto ai=1 proposals now right? > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:19 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> on the test roll I rolled myself :( >> >> On 7/9/2019 5:10 PM, Ja

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [dicelog] [Deputy-ADoP] Selection of Comptrollor

2019-07-09 Thread Rebecca
well i mean i can only veto ai=1 proposals now right? On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 10:19 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > on the test roll I rolled myself :( > > On 7/9/2019 5:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > And this is how we all die. > > > > Jason Cobb > >

DIS: Re: OFF: [dicelog] [Deputy-ADoP] Selection of Comptrollor

2019-07-09 Thread Rebecca
aw yeah On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 7:27 AM Dice Server -bl69cv- wrote: > > This is an automatic message. > > This message was generated by > > ke...@uw.edu > > through the "hamete virtual dice server" at https://dicelog.com > > Message sent to: > > ke...@uw.edu >

Re: DIS: On Karma

2019-07-08 Thread Rebecca
surely it just means that the player has published no previous valid notices of honour in the said week! On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 12:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Rule 2510 ("Such is Karma") reads: > > >A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. For a Notice of Honour > >to be valid, it

Re: DIS: missing time window

2019-07-08 Thread Rebecca
It certainly could be so done, but it would add text to the ruleset so I didn't propose it :P On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:53 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Is there a reason that this Rule says that the Herald has to do it? The > paydays rule (Rule 2559) just says that "at the beginning of each month, >

Re: DIS: arbitor straw poll

2019-07-08 Thread Rebecca
agree On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 2:54 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm personally fine with it, and it makes it slightly more searchable to > have it all in email. > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/8/19 11:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On 7/7/2019 5:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> Ah, another week, another 5

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-07-07 Thread Rebecca
Can someone deputise for the assessor? I'm too busy but it needs to be done more than any other job. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 12:44 PM James Cook wrote: > I don't think so. > > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 06:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G. > > > > On

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2019-07-07 Thread Rebecca
do we do literally anything other than semantic hair-splitting? we sure don't do any actual gameplay On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 4:37 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/6/2019 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Ok, this is a ridiculous level of semantic hair-splitting even for > Agora, > >> sorry. > >

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

2019-07-05 Thread Rebecca
On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself > > Does this work? > > R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which

Re: DIS: Summary Judgment is broken

2019-07-04 Thread Rebecca
i wrote this, what he said On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 6:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/4/2019 11:49 AM, James Cook wrote: > > Also, I don't think R2451 overrides R2531. R2451 says the reason MAY > > be any grievance, but MAY just means it doesn't violate the rules; I > > don't think implies it's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd

2019-07-02 Thread Rebecca
No On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:49 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > >> Dang it; you are

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3752 Assigned to omd

2019-07-02 Thread Rebecca
Gratuitious: the caller emself admits that N is obviously intended to mean a number. One meaning of N in this specialised context is to stand in for a number. This isn't even a policy argument, this would be a perfectly textual holding. On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >

Re: DIS: "Class-N Crime" or "Class N Crime"

2019-07-02 Thread Rebecca
This would be a good candidate for a cleanup. I think the dash is more correct as its an adjectival phrase as it were? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:51 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Just to be stylistically consistent, which one should I prefer? The > Rules use both, although "Class N" is more common than

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: Resolving Prime Minister election

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
People should, as used to be required by law, signature their emails with their preferred Agoran names, I feel. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 2:43 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > That all looks fine, thanks for resolving it quickly. > > Side note, I see in your quote introduction that it says "Falsifian". I am

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
Oh true, I forgot about the proposal pool indeed. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > You can CoE it because it makes the proposal list, which is self-ratifying, > invalid. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 a

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
You have been but I just resigned the office, so you can take it back, On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:04 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > Falsifian wrote: > > > CoE: Rance is the Herald. E published a Herald's report by > > deputisation on June 4. > > Admitted, database corrected. This appears to have been

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
These aren't real CoEs anyway, remember. There's no obligation for proposals to be distributed at the same time. So you can't really CoE an omission, only finger point an untimely one. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:00 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > *OH.* Whoops. Yeah,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
Well no, you're asking for an impossible number of an existing topping. If you went into a burger king and said "i want this burger with 1/2 of an extra pickle" the employee would say "we cannot cut these pickles in half, but we will give you one extra pickle, the default number of extra pickles"

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
(I know that it adds text)? Is there > something materially wrong with it that I should fix later? > > Also, you could make Tarhalindur vote FOR the ones that you can't due to > your pledge (I think, depending on the wording of the pledge). > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/1

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
ttpf On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 12:03 PM Rebecca wrote: > Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds words > to the rules > > I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf to vote as follows. > > 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
Reminder that I am still pledged to vote AGAINST anything that adds words to the rules I vote as follows. I also act on Tarhalindur's behalf to vote as follows. 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) AGAINST 8197 G. none no power is all powerful

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
quot;I choose to optionally specify this AI" so it's simply not rewriting to invalidate the speech act which simply doesn't work. We do that sort of thing all the time. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:32 AM Rebecca wrote: > Well we're not rewriting the speech act. Textually, if you optionally >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
ext of Agoran speech acts. In other words, please either present > a counter-argument or explain why your viewpoint is better. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:18 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > I think a proposal with an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed > > becau

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-07-01 Thread Rebecca
I think a proposal with an incorrect AI should be allowed to succeed because an AI is optional. In my opinion only mandatory requirements should be made to be met for something to succeed. On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:31 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I’d propose a

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3746 Assigned to R. Lee

2019-06-30 Thread Rebecca
Judgement in CFJ 3746. Under rule 1950, each Agoran Decision has an Adoption index switch with a default value of "none" and each Decision with an AI has a voting method of AI majority. The question is do elections (defined in rule 2154), Agoran Decisions with an Adoption index switch, have an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: birthday activities...

2019-06-30 Thread Rebecca
This has to get done man On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 10:41 PM Rebecca wrote: > Very interested > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:50 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > Do we have a quorum of folks interested in a birthday tournament over the > > next couple weeks? > &

DIS: Re: BUS: birthday activities...

2019-06-30 Thread Rebecca
Very interested On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 2:50 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Do we have a quorum of folks interested in a birthday tournament over the > next couple weeks? > > If so, Rance your tournament rules were quite good I thought, minus a > couple > scoring tweaks - still interested in doing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: that pesky empty set again

2019-06-24 Thread Rebecca
i favour this On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 6:13 PM omd wrote: > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > CFJ: An Agoran decision to select the winner of the election has > > a voting method of AI-Majority. > > > > Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices, Power=3): > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so

2019-06-23 Thread Rebecca
Yeah, it should have been 1 because that's the power these switches are secured at, my official answer is dont worry about it dawg On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 3:09 PM James Cook wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Rebecca wrote: > > Title: Spaceships > > AI: 1.1 > > Why

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177

2019-06-23 Thread Rebecca
e section "D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection > failed." in my judgement of CFJ 3726 at > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3726 > > On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:47, Rebecca wrote: > > > > Awesome. I withdraw my pending CFJ with th

Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
Or i mean i could do that it does seem like my job On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:45 PM Rebecca wrote: > Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I > filed. > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote: > >> (That's why I've made a proposal

Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
Sorry, I meant the space rules? That would enable me to recall the CFJ I filed. On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:44 PM Rebecca wrote: > (That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah) > > Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2

Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
(That's why I've made a proposal to create spaceships, yeah) Can you find the message where we ratified out the space ru On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > Does the previous state of spce carry over or does

DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are you planning to battle your spces? discuss today -- >From R. Lee

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
"ha who reads things when they can just complain instead" - me On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought Proposal 8181 did that? > > -Aris > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:11 PM Rebecca wrote: > >

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
uh nobody's fixed the Cold Hand of Justice? On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:07 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 7:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > Quorum might be wrong, given this CoE on the Assessor report by G (in a > > reply to the thread): >

Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
Does any language have inherent meaning? :thinking: On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 5:07 PM omd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I think you’re making it worse rather than better. I’d drop the “with no > > inherent meaning” bit; a judge could easily interpret it to

Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so

2019-06-22 Thread Rebecca
Well, one of the many such precedents stretching back forever. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 4:00 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 22:57 -0700, omd wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:53 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > > > In my view, "inherent

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
thing. Implicit doctrines create messes. They have > their place, but they should be codified and made binding law. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:45 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > > I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state > > things th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
I would oppose this because of my usual opposition to rules that state things that are obvious and known by all, the fact that I am Oath-bound to vote AGAINST proposals that add net text, and the fact that rules are not fun and implied doctrines are very fun. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 2:33 PM Aris

Re: DIS: Proto: Timeline Control Ordnance

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
CFJs are technically nonbinding, platonically, so a SHOULD is fine. On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 1:53 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > A few small nitpicks: > > > On the objective timeline, the consequences of an action or event > Consistent capitalization please :) > > > > and cannot be retroactively

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
You could still bribe them with getting a win in the scam, if it's proposal based. Maybe with the text "X gets a win, then Y gets a win", therefore making the scammer the speaker. This is actually my one regret with the one time I win the game, I should have made me win last haha. On Sat, Jun 22,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
gt;> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I would like to remain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. > >>>> > >>>> -Aris > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
Don't be sorry for interpreting the rules! I say this only because it's just what I've always remembered. Also I've taken the office so it doesn't matter now! On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 12:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Ah sorry about that then. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/21/19 10:53 PM

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The ruleset is too long so

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
ion depends on support, the performer has supported > the > >>>intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does > not > >>>explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it; > >> Rule 2598 ("Side-Game Suspension&qu

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents

2019-06-21 Thread Rebecca
emain as Promotor, if the public doesn’t mind. > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >>> I support the intent for ADoP. > > >>> > > >>> If any non-incumb

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
Sorry for being snappy about your CFJ by the way, I didn't realise what was at issue On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 3:31 PM James Cook wrote: > 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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 wrot

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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 > &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
eans 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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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 ou

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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, >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
ibing > 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 mea

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
s 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 &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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

DIS: Re: OFF: I'm broke!

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (revised)

2019-06-20 Thread Rebecca
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.

DIS: Re: BUS: Auction bids due! Attn Baron von Vaderham, omd, Rance, R. Lee

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
(I argue that although this conditional appears to rest on a future CFJ's interpretation, making it inextricable, there is objectively only one "law" which judges in the Agoran system merely discover, so this conditional should work) On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 7:31 AM Rebecca wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: Some catch-up actions

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
A CFJ did hold that blots can't be expunged, yes. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > I earn 5 coins for publishing the latest ADoP report. > > I expunge my Blot (if I can, which I suspect I can't). > > Notice of Honour: > -1 Murphy (dragging heels on Prime Minister election)

Re: DIS: Future of Regulations (was [proto] regulated actions reform)

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
for regulations to exist, but I'd like > them to be used. If there's something that can be done to make it so > people actually start using them more widely (where appropriate, of > course), I'd like to do it. > > -Aris > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:49 PM Rebecca wrote: > > &

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns rules mwa ha ha. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:49 PM Rebecca wrote: > If they've never been useful in the past... I don't see a future use for >

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
> > > > That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of > > close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that. > > > > Jason Cobb > > > > On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > what if you repeal regulations and change

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
I hope we actually have a birthday tournament that works this year though On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:43 PM Rebecca wrote: > tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway. > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > >> That would require rewriti

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
tournaments should just be contracts with special powers anyway. On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of > close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that. > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/19/19 11:38

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Rebecca
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get > confused with regulations. > > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I'd

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition" clause, that being 3538. To quote it "I agree that the pledge, if effective, would be a severe enough restriction on V.J. Rada's participation in the Fora as to run afoul of Rule 478 (as even though e is not strictly

Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux wrote: > R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that > CHOJ is broken. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: omd > Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM > Subject: Re: BUS:

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose the CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so. > > Referee’s Weekly Report > Date of This Report:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
Fines can be levied, surely, per the revised version of CFJ 3736, which says they CAN, but not by announcement On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:13 PM D. Margaux wrote: > As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for > anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
Oh it was rejected. Never mind! On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:26 PM Rebecca wrote: > Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is > that still in the ruleset? > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > > > > 8058* V.J. R

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3739 Assigned to Falsifian

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
Gratuitous argument. Even if "deputisation" or "temporary deputisation" are totally distinct categories, the Cyan Ribbon category uses the word "deputises" rather than "deputisation". A person who engages in "temporary deputisation", even if distinct from "deputisation" still engages in the _verb_

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065

2019-06-18 Thread Rebecca
Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is that still in the ruleset? On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada > AGAINST > > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-06-17 Thread Rebecca
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > =Metareport= > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > Date of last report: 2019-05-19 > Date of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-17 Thread Rebecca
We just discussed this last week! Yes, the rules CAN proscribe unregulated actions and do in fact. it's just illegal to formally interpret them that way, whether or not that interpretation is legally correct. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM omd wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:47 PM Jason

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I think any reasonable human judge would rule as such. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't need a special rule to say what is already implicit. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that the

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed, and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ On Mon,

DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

2019-06-16 Thread Rebecca
Gratuitous Argument The Pledge rule states that "N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise". But it doesn't say what N is when the pledge _does_ explicitly state otherwise. Therefore, N is indeterminate and there is no explicit Class for this crime, so it defaults to a base value of 2.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
Yes, I am convinced that you are absolutely right. I guess nobody has any zombies then. On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:51 PM Rebecca wrote: > Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote: > >> Could you elabourate? Even

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
hink anything would allow me to transfer > them to the winner of the auction. > > On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca, wrote: > > > Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual > > ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context mean

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to change from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN transfer the switch: from agora to the auction winners. On Sat, 15 Jun 2019,

DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction

2019-06-14 Thread Rebecca
Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote: > The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended. > > Lots: > 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 2. Corona > 3. Hālian > 4. Tarhalindur > > Bids (all times UTC): > 2019-06-07 17:01:

  1   2   >