Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
On 1/22/2019 10:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>> On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but >> I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not >> sure about that though). > > I admit that I don’t fully understand this CFJ decision. However, aren’t > there CFJs that say, essentially, that a player cannot use a shorthand “I > perform an action X times,” when X is a number large enough that the > player couldn’t reasonably spell out all of those actions separately in > the message? If I am remembering that right, and if the creation of each > unit of influence is a separate action, then perhaps the attempt create > 1,000,000,000 units of influence failed under that reasoning. The context of CFJ 3597 was different. In that case, V.J. Rada was attempting to satisfy an auction debt of N by separating the auction payment into N payments of 1, and performing other actions in between each payment that, at the time, would get the 1 back to em - i.e. trying to satisfy a single auction debt of N by transferring the same coin back and forth N times. So the finding of CFJ 3597 is that an action explicitly specified in the Rules like "paying N coins to do X" has to be done as a single act to succeed, and can't be done via N payments of 1. The rules breakage in question was "failure to pay for the auction in a timely fashion" (after the N transfers of 1 were found to have failed to pay the debt). So it was a single crime of failing to pay N - the N attempts to pay 1 weren't criminal in and of themselves. In your case, each award of 1 may or may not be a separate act, R2542 is not really clear on that. In particular, the legal awards of 3 to judges or an advisor implies that the award of 3 is a single action, and the first sentence says "award Favours" instead of "award a Favour", so I'm inclined to think that an award of N written as a single action is a single act and subject to a single penalty. But YMMV on that - breaking a SHALL NOT by awarding yourself N is worse than doing so by awarding yourself only 1, so there may be arguments the other way. If we first determine that your act was N acts of 1 and not one act of N, then we can move on to the (rather handwavy case-by-case IMO) precedents of whether "N acts of 1" gets to that "too large" level. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
> On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but > I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not > sure about that though). I admit that I don’t fully understand this CFJ decision. However, aren’t there CFJs that say, essentially, that a player cannot use a shorthand “I perform an action X times,” when X is a number large enough that the player couldn’t reasonably spell out all of those actions separately in the message? If I am remembering that right, and if the creation of each unit of influence is a separate action, then perhaps the attempt create 1,000,000,000 units of influence failed under that reasoning. > In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum possible > sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the degree that the > violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official > position.", and this is all of the above. This is probably true. And there is some poetic justice and comedy value in the idea of imposing a billion blot fine. Starting to regret finding this exploit!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
I don't even know where to start figuring this out, so it would be good to CFJ "D. Margaux has committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations", but we need some way to get it assigned without D. Margaux interfering via eir position as Arbitor (the earliest e can be impeached is Friday). Any ideas? A Cabinet Order of Certiorari would work, but only if ATMunn wants to judge it emself. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 21, 2019 5:43 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum > possible sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the > degree that the violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an > abuse of an official position.", and this is all of the above. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:25 PM Aris Merchant > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear what’s > > going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but > > I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not > > sure about that though). > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. > > > ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ > > > Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that might > > > indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a > > > different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. The > > > official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" favours > > > actually does anything at all? > > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Monday, January 21, 2019 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. > > > > I’m > > > > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I > > > > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may > > > > be a > > > > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant > > > > provisions > > > > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. > > > > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. > > > > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the > > > > > rules and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. > > > > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum possible sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the degree that the violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official position.", and this is all of the above. -Aris On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:25 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear what’s > going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but I > think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not sure > about that though). > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. >> >> ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ >> >> Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that might >> indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a >> different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. The >> official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" favours >> actually does anything at all? >> >> -twg >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, January 21, 2019 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> >> > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. I’m >> > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I >> > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be a >> > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions >> > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. >> > >> > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. >> > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the >> > > rules and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. >> > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.” >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear what’s going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not sure about that though). -Aris On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. > > ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ > > Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that might > indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a > different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. The > official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" favours > actually does anything at all? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, January 21, 2019 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. > I’m > > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I > > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be > a > > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions > > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. > > > > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. > > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the > > > rules and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. > > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.” > > >
