DIS: Re: BUS: [Notice of Honour] Wait! Wait! I'm still using it!

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

It was a very fun 27 minutes though

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 5:30 PM Lucidiot via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 19/11/2020 17:03, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > Wait, wait! We can go full circle!
> >
> > This is a Notice of Honor
> >
> > +1 Falsifan (because I want to go the whole round around)
> > -1 Lucidiot (because this is a sacrifice I am willing to take)
> >
> > Now we're back to where we started.
> >
>
> Heh.
>
> This is a Notice of Honour:
>
> +1 Falsifian (for honouring me)
> -1 CuddleBeam (for dishonouring me)
>
> --
> ~lucidiot
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/30/20 10:41 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/30/20 8:51 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> This is a notice of honour.
>>
>> -1 Jason for attempting to resolve the fix proposal too early, opening a
>> scam opportunity
>>
>> +1 nch for not taking advantage of that opportunity
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
>>
> This is a notice of honour.
> 
> +1 Jason for trying eir best to counterscam and being a fun opponent
> 
> -1 nch for undeserved honour from Jason
> 
NttPF

-- 

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

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/30/20 8:51 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> This is a notice of honour.
>
> -1 Jason for attempting to resolve the fix proposal too early, opening a
> scam opportunity
>
> +1 nch for not taking advantage of that opportunity
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
This is a notice of honour.

+1 Jason for trying eir best to counterscam and being a fun opponent

-1 nch for undeserved honour from Jason

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Re: BUS: [Notice of Honour]

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 21:06, nch via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> This is a Notice of Honour:
>
> +1 Falsifian (excellence in journalism)
>
> -1 Jason (to ensure eir ego doesn't grow too big up in the clouds above
> the rest of us)

Thanks, ATMunn and nch! I am glad you're enjoying the summaries.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

NttPF

> On Mar 30, 2020, at 19:16, Rebecca via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history
>> -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline
>> 
>> -Alexis
>> 
> 
>  +1 Jason
> -1 Aris
> 
> Reasons are the same as Alexis, above
> -- 
> From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history
> -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline
>
> -Alexis
>

  +1 Jason
-1 Aris

Reasons are the same as Alexis, above
-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Falsifian wrote:


Notice of Honour:
+1 to Jason Cobb for publishing Rulekeepor reports.
-1 to Murphy for being flaky about ADoP duties. (I'm thankful to have
an ADoP, but I need to get the Karma from somewhere.)


*fist-shaking intensifies*

I do need to catch up on this account a lot more often. I also caught
the flu/whatever this past week, but it's basically passed now (down to
just a sore throat) and ADoP should be fully caught up within an hour.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Rebecca]

yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :)
>
> Notice of Honor:
> -1 G. (unclear communication)
> +1 omd (serving as our Distributor)
>
> Now we're both at 0, which seems equitable somehow.
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:14 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we're just interpreting things differently:  when a proposal is
> > "added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its
> original
> > number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the
> > pool in the mean time, those should have priority.
> >
> > In this case, it turned out that your ordering happened to favor
> proposals
> > you were keen on, that I didn't want to pass.
> >
> > Where this matters:  I thought about resubmitting a "Coins->Points"
> > name change proposal that could take effect before the "coin reduction"
> > proposals, thus rendering them ineffective.  But if those quorum-failing
> > proposals always jump the queue, that removes this strategy.
> >
> > Anyway:  I almost added that we haven't had a good "karma storm" (lots
> > of people sniping each others' karma) in a long time.  It's a good way
> > to blow off steam (and smooth things over :) ) without really damaging
> > anyone - though the zombies doing karma really amplifies it I guess!
> > I'm cool (even if you do another round of karma on me :P ).
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > To the public forum:
> > >
> > > I haven’t reordered proposals to favor one over another any time I can
> > > remember. If I have done so recently (in the last few months), please
> point
> > > it out, and I pledge that I will state, publicly, whether or not the
> > > reordering was an attempt at deliberate manipulation. I make every
> effort
> > > to be scrupulously fair with my actions in the office of the Promotor.
> I’ve
> > > done a few pranks (that thing with Cuddlebeam last year comes to
> mind), but
> > > nothing I didn’t consider ethical. On every occasion upon which I have
> been
> > > offered a bribe to distribute proposals in a certain way, I have
> refused
> > > it. I’m trying very hard not to take personal offense at that
> allegation,
> > > given that this is a game and we appear to only be having a
> > > misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > I believe that if a proposal fails quorum, it should be voted upon
> again,
> > > so that the people of Agora can state their views on it. I have
> attempted
> > > to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only
> > > trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering
> quorum
> > > are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the
> > > proposal process.
> > >
> > > With hope that we can smooth this over,
> > > Aris
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:40 PM Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting
> any
> > > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them
> failing
> > > > > quorum)
> > > >
> > > > Quorum is working as intended.  The only "problem" is that some
> people
> > > > don't accept a result as a result, to the point that they are using
> their
> > > > Office in self-interest by distributing proposals out of the order
> that
> > > > they were placed in the pool, to favor proposals that they like.
> > > >
> > > > Might as well jump in though.
> > > >
> > > > Notice of Honour:
> > > > -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it).
> > > > +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On behalf of Gaelan, I publish this following Notice of Honour:
> > > >
> > > > Notice of Honour
> > > > -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it).
> > > > +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be
> > > > listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and
> > > > I like that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

I think we're just interpreting things differently:  when a proposal is
"added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its original
number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the
pool in the mean time, those should have priority.

In this case, it turned out that your ordering happened to favor proposals
you were keen on, that I didn't want to pass.

Where this matters:  I thought about resubmitting a "Coins->Points"
name change proposal that could take effect before the "coin reduction"
proposals, thus rendering them ineffective.  But if those quorum-failing
proposals always jump the queue, that removes this strategy.

Anyway:  I almost added that we haven't had a good "karma storm" (lots
of people sniping each others' karma) in a long time.  It's a good way
to blow off steam (and smooth things over :) ) without really damaging
anyone - though the zombies doing karma really amplifies it I guess!
I'm cool (even if you do another round of karma on me :P ).


On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> To the public forum:
> 
> I haven’t reordered proposals to favor one over another any time I can
> remember. If I have done so recently (in the last few months), please point
> it out, and I pledge that I will state, publicly, whether or not the
> reordering was an attempt at deliberate manipulation. I make every effort
> to be scrupulously fair with my actions in the office of the Promotor. I’ve
> done a few pranks (that thing with Cuddlebeam last year comes to mind), but
> nothing I didn’t consider ethical. On every occasion upon which I have been
> offered a bribe to distribute proposals in a certain way, I have refused
> it. I’m trying very hard not to take personal offense at that allegation,
> given that this is a game and we appear to only be having a
> misunderstanding.
> 
> I believe that if a proposal fails quorum, it should be voted upon again,
> so that the people of Agora can state their views on it. I have attempted
> to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only
> trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering quorum
> are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the
> proposal process.
> 
> With hope that we can smooth this over,
> Aris
> 
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:40 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any
> > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them failing
> > > quorum)
> >
> > Quorum is working as intended.  The only "problem" is that some people
> > don't accept a result as a result, to the point that they are using their
> > Office in self-interest by distributing proposals out of the order that
> > they were placed in the pool, to favor proposals that they like.
> >
> > Might as well jump in though.
> >
> > Notice of Honour:
> > -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it).
> > +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom).
> >
> >
> > On behalf of Gaelan, I publish this following Notice of Honour:
> >
> > Notice of Honour
> > -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it).
> > +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be
> > listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and
> > I like that.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> > 2.  In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
> > "other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
> > same entity as in clause (3).  Does the "other" mean anything with that
> > reversal?
> 
> Um no, it's meant to refer to the fact it cannot be the publishing player
> emself.

Sorry, silly me.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


2.  In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
same entity as in clause (3).  Does the "other" mean anything with that
reversal?


Um no, it's meant to refer to the fact it cannot be the publishing player 
emself.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

Two gratuitous arguments:

1. CFJ 3657 found that the +1 and -1 are simultaneous:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039083.html

2.  In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
same entity as in clause (3).  Does the "other" mean anything with that
reversal? 

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
> principle is more important than its application in this particular Notice
> of Honour.
> 
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> 
> > PF
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley  wrote:
> >
> > > I submit this notice of honor:
> > >
> > > -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
> > > +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
> > >
> > > I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
> > > exactly one and then change back.
> > >
> > > Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
> > > spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with
> > nothing.
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > J. R. R. Tolkien
> > > J.R.R. Tolkien
> > > J R R Tolkien
> > > JRR Tolkien
> > >
> > > All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
> > > Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should
> > be
> > > accepted using any method of separation.
> > >
> > > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > person
> > > who registered during April of this year.
> > >
> > > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> > wrong.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor:
> > > >
> > > > -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor)
> > > > +1 nichdel (being mainipulated)
> > > >
> > > > I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish
> > > > anyway:
> > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any
> > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them
> > failing
> > > > quorum)
> > > > +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals)
> > > >
> > > > -Aris
> > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour:
> > > > >
> > > > > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie)
> > > > > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit)
> > > > > --
> > > > > D. Margaux
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

CFJ 1361 ("Beverly") is quite relevant here.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > person who registered during April of this year.
> > 
> > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> > wrong.
> 
> Our precedent is basically that player names aren't a "tracked" thing,
> rather we simply identify players by whichever means is most
> convenient. (It should in theory be possible to change how someone else
> is named on the Registrar report if everyone persistently calls them by
> a particular name.) As such, any unambiguous attempt to name someone is
> likely to work, regardless of what the spelling is.
> 
> (There was a period of Agoran history where we had a player named
> "Wooble" and a player named "woggle", and occasionally people got
> confused and ended up producing a name somewhere in between. I can't
> remember for certain how that worked out, but I'd expect it to be "as
> long as it's clear who's the poster was trying to name, it works". This
> situation is much less ambiguous.)
> 
> -- 
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 13:45 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> This is CFJ 3662. I assign it to D. Margaux.

Doesn't this assignment have the same (alleged) ambiguity in it as the
event that's the subject of the CFJ?

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 16:09 -0400, D Margaux wrote:
> I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
> principle is more important than its application in this particular
> Notice of Honour.

I don't think there's a conflict of interest. Either it's valid and
your honour doesn't change, or it's invalid and your honour doesn't
change.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[D Margaux]

I favor this CFJ. I suppose I am an interested party, but the general
principle is more important than its application in this particular Notice
of Honour.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 4:03 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> PF
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley  wrote:
>
> > I submit this notice of honor:
> >
> > -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
> > +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
> >
> > I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
> > exactly one and then change back.
> >
> > Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
> > spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with
> nothing.
> > For example:
> >
> > J. R. R. Tolkien
> > J.R.R. Tolkien
> > J R R Tolkien
> > JRR Tolkien
> >
> > All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
> > Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should
> be
> > accepted using any method of separation.
> >
> > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> person
> > who registered during April of this year.
> >
> > This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> wrong.
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor:
> > >
> > > -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor)
> > > +1 nichdel (being mainipulated)
> > >
> > > I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish
> > > anyway:
> > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any
> > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them
> failing
> > > quorum)
> > > +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals)
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour:
> > > >
> > > > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie)
> > > > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit)
> > > > --
> > > > D. Margaux
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> person who registered during April of this year.
> 
> This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> wrong.

Our precedent is basically that player names aren't a "tracked" thing,
rather we simply identify players by whichever means is most
convenient. (It should in theory be possible to change how someone else
is named on the Registrar report if everyone persistently calls them by
a particular name.) As such, any unambiguous attempt to name someone is
likely to work, regardless of what the spelling is.

(There was a period of Agoran history where we had a player named
"Wooble" and a player named "woggle", and occasionally people got
confused and ended up producing a name somewhere in between. I can't
remember for certain how that worked out, but I'd expect it to be "as
long as it's clear who's the poster was trying to name, it works". This
situation is much less ambiguous.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

I submit this notice of honor:

-1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
+1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules

I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
exactly one and then change back.

Arguments: In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with nothing.
For example:

J. R. R. Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien
J R R Tolkien
JRR Tolkien

All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should be
accepted using any method of separation.

Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a person
who registered during April of this year.

This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something wrong.

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 13:26 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I act on behalf of Tenaior to publish the following notice of honor:
>
> -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor)
> +1 nichdel (being mainipulated)
>
> I publish the following notice of honor, which I was about to publish
> anyway:
> -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting any
> attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them failing
> quorum)
> +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals)
>
> -Aris
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM D Margaux  wrote:
>
> > I cause nichdel to issue this Notice of Honour:
> >
> > -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie)
> > +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit)
> > --
> > D. Margaux
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

This is not to the public forum.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Another notice of honour: VJ loses one for the reasons discussed in this
> thread.
>
> ATMunn gains one because e is generally a really good player.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Nov 27, 2017 5:33 PM, "ATMunn"  wrote:
>
> > Notice of Honour:
> > VJ Rada loses 1 karma for scamming, making things hard for me as
> > ADoP, and generally not being a good Agoran.
> > G. gains 1 karma for being such a great long-term player, and
> > generally knowing what e's doing.
> >
> > (I considered giving a karma to Corona, but I don't want new players to
> > just become karma farms. Don't get me wrong, I think Corona has been a
> > great player so far, but I think 1 or 2 Notices of Honour are enough.)
> >
> > On 11/27/2017 7:24 PM, Telnaior wrote:
> >
> >> This is a Notice of Honour.
> >>
> >> I award a karma to Corona for being a super cool newbie.
> >>
> >> I subtract a karma from VJ Rada for senselessly and intentionally
> causing
> >> Agora significant amounts of trouble on several occasions.
> >>
> >>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

Another notice of honour: VJ loses one for the reasons discussed in this
thread.

ATMunn gains one because e is generally a really good player.

--
Trigon

On Nov 27, 2017 5:33 PM, "ATMunn"  wrote:

> Notice of Honour:
> VJ Rada loses 1 karma for scamming, making things hard for me as
> ADoP, and generally not being a good Agoran.
> G. gains 1 karma for being such a great long-term player, and
> generally knowing what e's doing.
>
> (I considered giving a karma to Corona, but I don't want new players to
> just become karma farms. Don't get me wrong, I think Corona has been a
> great player so far, but I think 1 or 2 Notices of Honour are enough.)
>
> On 11/27/2017 7:24 PM, Telnaior wrote:
>
>> This is a Notice of Honour.
>>
>> I award a karma to Corona for being a super cool newbie.
>>
>> I subtract a karma from VJ Rada for senselessly and intentionally causing
>> Agora significant amounts of trouble on several occasions.
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

Alright, CB. Sign me up to your dating service. I'm pretty unethical.

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> You can subtract from me, but not from who I am enabling to game the system
> in secret, mwahahaha!
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Telnaior  wrote:
>>
>> This is a Notice of Honour.
>> I subtract a Karma from Cuddle Beam for attempting to game the karma
>> system.
>> I give a Karma to Aris for putting in a valiant effort as Promotor during
>> an especially busy period.
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Cuddle Beam]

You can subtract from me, but not from who I am enabling to game the system
in secret, mwahahaha!

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Telnaior  wrote:

> This is a Notice of Honour.
> I subtract a Karma from Cuddle Beam for attempting to game the karma
> system.
> I give a Karma to Aris for putting in a valiant effort as Promotor during
> an especially busy period.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Madeline]

Well... no one said the reason had to be accurate :V

On 2017-10-29 14:10, VJ Rada wrote:

Bayushi is actually a 0-karma inactive.

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

Bayushi is actually a 0-karma inactive.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[ATMunn]

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, however, it seems that initiation was 
NttPF.

On 10/25/2017 7:14 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

attn ATMunn: Here's me unilaterally initiating an election for an office I hold.

Not actually sure if o. has ever become a candidate. Attn o: Probably should do 
that.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:49 PM, VJ Rada > wrote:

I don't think you can do that any more. IIRC you need to have 2
support AND the position be interim if you aren't the ADoP, or you can
initiate an election unilaterally if you are the ADoP and the position
is interim, or if you hold the position (which I now do)

However, I'm happy to oblige. I initiate an election for Referee. I
also stand for election.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Owen Jacobson > wrote:
 >
 >> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:27 AM, VJ Rada > wrote:
 >>
 >> That reminds me, I intend to deputize for referee.
 >
 > I object.
 >
 > P.S.S. also reached out to me personally about deputizing for this 
office. I’m content (bordering on eager; it’s a fascinating office) to continue in 
it, or relinquish it, as Agora sees fit, so…
 >
 > As elections for the office of Referee have not occurred in the last 90 
days, I initiate an election for the office of Referee. I stand for election. I 
submit no campaign proposal - there are enough crim jus proposals in flight as it 
is.
 >
 > -o
 >
 >



--
 From V.J. Rada




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

attn ATMunn: Here's me unilaterally initiating an election for an office I
hold.

Not actually sure if o. has ever become a candidate. Attn o: Probably
should do that.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:49 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I don't think you can do that any more. IIRC you need to have 2
> support AND the position be interim if you aren't the ADoP, or you can
> initiate an election unilaterally if you are the ADoP and the position
> is interim, or if you hold the position (which I now do)
>
> However, I'm happy to oblige. I initiate an election for Referee. I
> also stand for election.
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:27 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> That reminds me, I intend to deputize for referee.
> >
> > I object.
> >
> > P.S.S. also reached out to me personally about deputizing for this
> office. I’m content (bordering on eager; it’s a fascinating office) to
> continue in it, or relinquish it, as Agora sees fit, so…
> >
> > As elections for the office of Referee have not occurred in the last 90
> days, I initiate an election for the office of Referee. I stand for
> election. I submit no campaign proposal - there are enough crim jus
> proposals in flight as it is.
> >
> > -o
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

I don't think you can do that any more. IIRC you need to have 2
support AND the position be interim if you aren't the ADoP, or you can
initiate an election unilaterally if you are the ADoP and the position
is interim, or if you hold the position (which I now do)

However, I'm happy to oblige. I initiate an election for Referee. I
also stand for election.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:27 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> That reminds me, I intend to deputize for referee.
>
> I object.
>
> P.S.S. also reached out to me personally about deputizing for this office. 
> I’m content (bordering on eager; it’s a fascinating office) to continue in 
> it, or relinquish it, as Agora sees fit, so…
>
> As elections for the office of Referee have not occurred in the last 90 days, 
> I initiate an election for the office of Referee. I stand for election. I 
> submit no campaign proposal - there are enough crim jus proposals in flight 
> as it is.
>
> -o
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

Surely so! I strongly remember resolving that batch, it was a huge one.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> Depitizing for rulekeepor entails taking the office over (unless you resign
> after of course). I think we'd all appreciate the short term work but it's
> one of the hardest jobs to do on an ongoing basis.
>
> That said, was the last election ever resolved? I see VJ initiated it on
> September 14 but can't find the resolution.
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:57 Reuben Staley,  wrote:
>>
>> (Oh gosh. What have I gotten myself into?)
>>
>> I don't understand the significance of your message. What should I wait
>> to do? Do you mean I shouldn't work on the ruleset?
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 1:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> > Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wanted it.
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/22/2017 03:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> (was this meant to be just to me?)  I'm not planning on doing anything
>> >> myself to start an election or anything... I mainly didn't want Trigon
>> >> to put work into it or think e could just grab it, because of exactly
>> >> what you said, I assumed you were putting work in already.
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> >>> I'd appreciate if you would at least waiit because I have already
>> >>> embarked on clearing the back log.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 10/22/2017 03:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>  I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an
>>  Officer
>>  before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of
>>  work,
>>  in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires
>>  some
>>  pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary
>>  person
>>  responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge
>>  of
>>  standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
>>  historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among
>>  experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers
>>  have
>>  happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).
>> 
>>  I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...
>> 
>>  On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
>> > You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible"
>> > clause in PSS' pledge
>> > false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it
>> > as "if you don't do it,
>> > they will".
>> > 天火狐
>> >
>> > On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley 
>> > wrote:
>> >Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
>> >
>> >--
>> >Trigon
>> >
>> > On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>> >That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
>> >
>> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley 
>> > wrote:
>> >Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread
>> > with the title "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
>> >
>> >--
>> >Trigon
>> >
>> > On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>> >
>> >Huh? When?
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,
>> >  wrote:
>> >I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for
>> > rulekeepor.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Trigon
>> >
>> > On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus"
>> >  wrote:
>> >I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017,
>> > if it is
>> >still possible.
>> >
>> >
>> >On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> >> Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>> >>
>> >> Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could
>> > deputise
>> >> for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an
>> > election,
>> >> perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ
>> > annotations?
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>   I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being
>> >> in
>> >>   confusion
>> >>   is really troubling...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>> >>   > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since
>> >> I've
>> >>   been
>> >>   > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>> >>   >
>> >>   > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

Depitizing for rulekeepor entails taking the office over (unless you resign
after of course). I think we'd all appreciate the short term work but it's
one of the hardest jobs to do on an ongoing basis.

That said, was the last election ever resolved? I see VJ initiated it on
September 14 but can't find the resolution.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:57 Reuben Staley,  wrote:

> (Oh gosh. What have I gotten myself into?)
>
> I don't understand the significance of your message. What should I wait
> to do? Do you mean I shouldn't work on the ruleset?
>
> On 10/22/2017 1:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wanted it.
> >
> >
> > On 10/22/2017 03:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> (was this meant to be just to me?)  I'm not planning on doing anything
> >> myself to start an election or anything... I mainly didn't want Trigon
> >> to put work into it or think e could just grab it, because of exactly
> >> what you said, I assumed you were putting work in already.
> >>
> >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >>> I'd appreciate if you would at least waiit because I have already
> >>> embarked on clearing the back log.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/22/2017 03:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>  I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
>  before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of
> work,
>  in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
>  pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary
> person
>  responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge
> of
>  standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
>  historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among
>  experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers
> have
>  happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).
> 
>  I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...
> 
>  On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible"
> clause in PSS' pledge
> > false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it
> as "if you don't do it,
> > they will".
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
> >
> >--
> >Trigon
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
> >That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread
> with the title "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
> >
> >--
> >Trigon
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
> >
> >Huh? When?
> >
> >
> >On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, <
> reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for
> rulekeepor.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017,
> if it is
> >still possible.
> >
> >
> >On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >> Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
> >>
> >> Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could
> deputise
> >> for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an
> election,
> >> perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
> >>
> >> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>   I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> >>   confusion
> >>   is really troubling...
> >>
> >>
> >>   On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> >>   > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since
> I've
> >>   been
> >>   > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >>   >
> >>   > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for
> because I'm
> >>   > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think
> it
> >>   might be
> >>   > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind
> of
> >>   missed
> >>   > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss
> this week's
> >>   > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

(Oh gosh. What have I gotten myself into?)

I don't understand the significance of your message. What should I wait 
to do? Do you mean I shouldn't work on the ruleset?


On 10/22/2017 1:50 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wanted it.


On 10/22/2017 03:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


(was this meant to be just to me?)  I'm not planning on doing anything
myself to start an election or anything... I mainly didn't want Trigon
to put work into it or think e could just grab it, because of exactly
what you said, I assumed you were putting work in already.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

I'd appreciate if you would at least waiit because I have already
embarked on clearing the back log.


On 10/22/2017 03:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of
standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among
experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have
happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).

I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:

You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in PSS' 
pledge
false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it as "if you 
don't do it,
they will".
天火狐

On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley  wrote:
   Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?

   --
   Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
   That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:
   Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title 
"Deputising for the rulekeepor".

   --
   Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:

   Huh? When?


   On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,  
wrote:
   I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.

--
Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" 
 wrote:
   I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
   still possible.


   On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
   > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
   >
   > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
   > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
   > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
   >
   > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > wrote:

      I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
      confusion
      is really troubling...


      On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
      > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
      been
      > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
      >
      > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
      > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
      might be
      > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
      missed
      > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
      > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
      Rulekeepor
      > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
      > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
      report).
      > I think every other office is OK?
      >
      > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
      weeklies
      > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
      > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
      > important.
      >
      > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt > wrote:
      >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada > wrote:
      >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
      >>
      >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
      keeping them up
      >> to date.
      >>
      >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
      original
      >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
      be the
      >> single most common 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Not you specifically, primarily Trigon, but really anyone who wanted it.


On 10/22/2017 03:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> (was this meant to be just to me?)  I'm not planning on doing anything
> myself to start an election or anything... I mainly didn't want Trigon
> to put work into it or think e could just grab it, because of exactly
> what you said, I assumed you were putting work in already.
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> I'd appreciate if you would at least waiit because I have already
>> embarked on clearing the back log.
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 03:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
>>> before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of work, 
>>> in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some 
>>> pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
>>> responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of 
>>> standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
>>> historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among 
>>> experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have
>>> happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).
>>>
>>> I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...
>>>
>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
 You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in 
 PSS' pledge 
 false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it as "if 
 you don't do it,
 they will". 
 天火狐

 On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley  wrote:
   Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?

   --
   Trigon

 On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
   That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.

 On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:
   Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the 
 title "Deputising for the rulekeepor".

   --
   Trigon

 On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:

   Huh? When?


   On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,  
 wrote:
   I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for 
 rulekeepor.

 --
 Trigon

 On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" 
  wrote:
   I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
   still possible.


   On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
   > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
   >
   > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
   > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
   > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
   >
   > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > wrote:
>
>      I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
>      confusion
>      is really troubling...
>
>
>      On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>      > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
>      been
>      > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>      >
>      > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
>      > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
>      might be
>      > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
>      missed
>      > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
>      > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
>      Rulekeepor
>      > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
>      > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
>      report).
>      > I think every other office is OK?
>      >
>      > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
>      weeklies
>      > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them 
> are
>      > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
>      > important.
>      >
>      > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt       > wrote:
>      >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada       > wrote:
>      >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>      >>
>      >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

I understand your concerns and even share some of them. That's why I'm 
only testing the waters a bit right now with the deputisation. If it 
turns out to be too much work and I don't want to handle it, than 
someone else should definitely take the job. That being said, I'm fairly 
certain that that will not happen and that I'll be able to fulfill the 
responsibilities of the position.


It is, however, the choice of the Agorans who is most fit for the 
position, I suppose. We'll just have to wait and see.


On 10/22/2017 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of
standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among
experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have
happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).

I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:

You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in PSS' 
pledge
false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it as "if you 
don't do it,
they will".
天火狐

On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley  wrote:
   Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?

   --
   Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
   That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:
   Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title 
"Deputising for the rulekeepor".

   --
   Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:

   Huh? When?


   On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,  
wrote:
   I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.

--
Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" 
 wrote:
   I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
   still possible.


   On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
   > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
   >
   > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
   > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
   > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
   >
   > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > wrote:

      I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
      confusion
      is really troubling...


      On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
      > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
      been
      > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
      >
      > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
      > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
      might be
      > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
      missed
      > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
      > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
      Rulekeepor
      > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
      > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
      report).
      > I think every other office is OK?
      >
      > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
      weeklies
      > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
      > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
      > important.
      >
      > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt > wrote:
      >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada > wrote:
      >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
      >>
      >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
      keeping them up
      >> to date.
      >>
      >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
      original
      >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
      be the
      >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
      >
      >












---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com



--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

Yes, regardless of who deputizes in the short-term I think this one definitely
deserves an election.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> I agree. I'm considering putting myself up for election on it as a result.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:
> 
> 
>   I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
>   before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
>   in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
>   pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
>   responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of
>   standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
>   historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among
>   experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have
>   happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

I agree. I'm considering putting myself up for election on it as a result.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 15:20 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
> before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of work,
> in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some
> pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
> responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of
> standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
> historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among
> experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have
> happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).
>
> I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause
> in PSS' pledge
> > false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it as
> "if you don't do it,
> > they will".
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >   Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
> >
> >   --
> >   Trigon
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
> >   That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >   Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with
> the title "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
> >
> >   --
> >   Trigon
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
> >
> >   Huh? When?
> >
> >
> >   On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, <
> reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for
> rulekeepor.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> > On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it
> is
> >   still possible.
> >
> >
> >   On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> >   > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
> >   >
> >   > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could
> deputise
> >   > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an
> election,
> >   > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
> >   >
> >   > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> > > confusion
> > > is really troubling...
> > >
> > >
> > > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> > > been
> > > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> > > >
> > > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because
> I'm
> > > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> > > might be
> > > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> > > missed
> > > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this
> week's
> > > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> > > Rulekeepor
> > > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month
> because
> > > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> > > report).
> > > > I think every other office is OK?
> > > >
> > > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> > > weeklies
> > > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
> are
> > > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > > > important.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  > > > wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  > > > wrote:
> > > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important
> CFJs.
> > > >>
> > > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> > > keeping them up
> > > >> to date.
> > > >>
> > > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> > > original
> > > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> > > be the
> > > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

I should say I'm a bit nervous with someone who hasn't been an Officer
before starting with rulekeepor.  It's an unholy blend of a lot of work, 
in big bursts, with timeliness being a big issue, and it requires some 
pretty finicky understanding of the rules (e.g. it's the primary person
responsible for whether proposal amendments work, requiring knowledge of 
standards for clarity, AI/power, etc.)  I think the position is
historically the biggest source of officer burn-out even among 
experienced players.  (I think almost *all* rulekeepor changeovers have
happened when the rulekeepor just gave up on it for a month or more).

I'm not saying "100% don't", but forewarned is forearmed...

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in 
> PSS' pledge 
> false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of it as "if you 
> don't do it,
> they will". 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley  wrote:
>   Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
> 
>   --
>   Trigon
> 
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>   That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
> 
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:
>   Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the 
> title "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
> 
>   --
>   Trigon
> 
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
> 
>   Huh? When?
> 
> 
>   On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,  
> wrote:
>   I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
> 
> --
> Trigon
> 
> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" 
>  wrote:
>   I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
>   still possible.
> 
> 
>   On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>   > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>   >
>   > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
>   > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
>   > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>   >
>   > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > > wrote:
> >
> >     I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> >     confusion
> >     is really troubling...
> >
> >
> >     On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> >     > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> >     been
> >     > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >     >
> >     > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> >     > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> >     might be
> >     > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> >     missed
> >     > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> >     > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> >     Rulekeepor
> >     > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> >     > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> >     report).
> >     > I think every other office is OK?
> >     >
> >     > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> >     weeklies
> >     > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> >     > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> >     > important.
> >     >
> >     > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  >     > wrote:
> >     >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  >     > wrote:
> >     >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> >     >>
> >     >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> >     keeping them up
> >     >> to date.
> >     >>
> >     >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> >     original
> >     >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> >     be the
> >     >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

You deputize by actually performing the action (e.g. actually publishing
an up-to-date Ruleset that's overdue).  Multiple people might announce
their intent to do so ahead of time, but that doesn't make the office
change (or reserve it for them).

So you'd do it by saying "I deputize for the Rulekeepor to publish the
following report:" followed by the actual report.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
> 
> --
> Trigon
> 
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>   That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
> 
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:
>   Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the 
> title "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
> 
>   --
>   Trigon
> 
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
> 
>   Huh? When?
> 
> 
>   On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,  
> wrote:
>   I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
> 
> --
> Trigon
> 
> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" 
>  wrote:
>   I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
>   still possible.
> 
> 
>   On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>   > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>   >
>   > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
>   > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
>   > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>   >
>   > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > > wrote:
> >
> >     I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> >     confusion
> >     is really troubling...
> >
> >
> >     On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> >     > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> >     been
> >     > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >     >
> >     > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> >     > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> >     might be
> >     > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> >     missed
> >     > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> >     > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> >     Rulekeepor
> >     > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> >     > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> >     report).
> >     > I think every other office is OK?
> >     >
> >     > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> >     weeklies
> >     > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> >     > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> >     > important.
> >     >
> >     > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  >     > wrote:
> >     >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  >     > wrote:
> >     >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> >     >>
> >     >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> >     keeping them up
> >     >> to date.
> >     >>
> >     >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> >     original
> >     >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> >     be the
> >     >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> >     >
> >     >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Josh T]

You can do as you intended, making the "if it is still possible" clause in
PSS' pledge false, thus alleviating eir duty to become Rulekeepor. Think of
it as "if you don't do it, they will".

天火狐

On 22 October 2017 at 10:44, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>
> That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
>> Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
>> "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
>>
>> --
>> Trigon
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>>
>>> Huh? When?
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.

 --
 Trigon

 On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
 p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

 I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
 still possible.


 On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
 > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
 >
 > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
 > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
 > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
 >
 > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > wrote:
 >
 > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
 > confusion
 > is really troubling...
 >
 >
 > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
 > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
 > been
 > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
 > >
 > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because
 I'm
 > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
 > might be
 > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
 > missed
 > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this
 week's
 > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
 > Rulekeepor
 > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month
 because
 > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
 > report).
 > > I think every other office is OK?
 > >
 > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
 > weeklies
 > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of
 them are
 > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
 > > important.
 > >
 > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  > wrote:
 > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  > wrote:
 > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important
 CFJs.
 > >>
 > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
 > keeping them up
 > >> to date.
 > >>
 > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
 > original
 > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
 > be the
 > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
 > >
 > >
 >




>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

Oh. Then it's PSS' responsibility now and not mine?

--
Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 8:40 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:

That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:

> Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
> "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>
>> Huh? When?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trigon
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
>>> still possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>>> >
>>> > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
>>> > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
>>> > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
>>> > confusion
>>> > is really troubling...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
>>> > been
>>> > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>>> > >
>>> > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because
>>> I'm
>>> > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
>>> > might be
>>> > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
>>> > missed
>>> > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this
>>> week's
>>> > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
>>> > Rulekeepor
>>> > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month
>>> because
>>> > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
>>> > report).
>>> > > I think every other office is OK?
>>> > >
>>> > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
>>> > weeklies
>>> > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
>>> are
>>> > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
>>> > > important.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt >> > > wrote:
>>> > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada >> > > wrote:
>>> > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important
>>> CFJs.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
>>> > keeping them up
>>> > >> to date.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
>>> > original
>>> > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
>>> > be the
>>> > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

That was only an intent; you haven't actually done it yet.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 10:34 Reuben Staley  wrote:

> Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
> "Deputising for the rulekeepor".
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:
>
>> Huh? When?
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Trigon
>>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
>>> still possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>>> >
>>> > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
>>> > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
>>> > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline >> > > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
>>> > confusion
>>> > is really troubling...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>>> > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
>>> > been
>>> > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>>> > >
>>> > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because
>>> I'm
>>> > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
>>> > might be
>>> > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
>>> > missed
>>> > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this
>>> week's
>>> > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
>>> > Rulekeepor
>>> > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month
>>> because
>>> > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
>>> > report).
>>> > > I think every other office is OK?
>>> > >
>>> > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
>>> > weeklies
>>> > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
>>> are
>>> > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
>>> > > important.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt >> > > wrote:
>>> > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada >> > > wrote:
>>> > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important
>>> CFJs.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
>>> > keeping them up
>>> > >> to date.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
>>> > original
>>> > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
>>> > be the
>>> > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

Are people still not getting my messages? It's in a thread with the title
"Deputising for the rulekeepor".

--
Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 8:31 AM, "Alexis Hunt"  wrote:

> Huh? When?
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley, 
> wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
>>
>> --
>> Trigon
>>
>> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
>> still possible.
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>> >
>> > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
>> > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
>> > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>> >
>> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > > > wrote:
>> >
>> > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
>> > confusion
>> > is really troubling...
>> >
>> >
>> > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>> > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
>> > been
>> > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>> > >
>> > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because
>> I'm
>> > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
>> > might be
>> > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
>> > missed
>> > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this
>> week's
>> > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
>> > Rulekeepor
>> > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
>> > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
>> > report).
>> > > I think every other office is OK?
>> > >
>> > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
>> > weeklies
>> > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
>> are
>> > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
>> > > important.
>> > >
>> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt > > > wrote:
>> > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada > > > wrote:
>> > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important
>> CFJs.
>> > >>
>> > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
>> > keeping them up
>> > >> to date.
>> > >>
>> > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
>> > original
>> > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
>> > be the
>> > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

Huh? When?

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017, 10:26 Reuben Staley,  wrote:

> I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
> still possible.
>
>
> On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
> >
> > Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
> > for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
> > perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > > wrote:
> >
> > I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> > confusion
> > is really troubling...
> >
> >
> > On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> > been
> > > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> > >
> > > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> > > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> > might be
> > > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> > missed
> > > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> > > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> > Rulekeepor
> > > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> > > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> > report).
> > > I think every other office is OK?
> > >
> > > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> > weeklies
> > > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
> are
> > > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > > important.
> > >
> > > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  > > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  > > wrote:
> > >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> > >>
> > >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> > keeping them up
> > >> to date.
> > >>
> > >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> > original
> > >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> > be the
> > >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

I don't think it's possible, as I have already deputized for rulekeepor.

--
Trigon

On Oct 22, 2017 5:42 AM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:

I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is
still possible.


On 10/22/2017 12:14 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>
> Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise
> for it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election,
> perhaps with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  > wrote:
>
> I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
> confusion
> is really troubling...
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
> been
> > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >
> > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
> might be
> > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
> missed
> > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
> Rulekeepor
> > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
> report).
> > I think every other office is OK?
> >
> > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
> weeklies
> > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > important.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  > wrote:
> >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> >>
> >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
> keeping them up
> >> to date.
> >>
> >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
> original
> >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
> be the
> >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Mine is sort of up to date. The Registrar's report should be there, but
I need to find my SSH key password to push again.


On 10/22/2017 12:10 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
> a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>
> JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it might be
> just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of missed
> him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> report but it would take another week for you to deputize. Rulekeepor
> I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a report).
> I think every other office is OK?
>
> And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies
> to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> important.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>>
>> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
>> to date.
>>
>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
>> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
>> single most common CFJ text of all time).
>
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 9:10 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
> a player. I think Gaelan took them out.

Indeed, e did. I and others have volunteered to help annotate CFJs,
including working on the backlog, but it never happened. The last FLR
to have CFJ annotations is here [1]. It's from May and was the last
ruleset G. did as Rulekeepor. Incidentally, they probably belong in
the FLR, because the HLR is designed for readability, not historical
content. I'd vote for any candidate who promised/pledged to maintain
the HLR and return CFJ annotations to the FLR.

[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

Yeah, go ahead and deputize if you want, Trigon.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> I'd be willing to do one or all of these things. I've been around for just
> under a month, so I think I know the gist of this game enough by now to have
> responsibilities.
>
> On 10/21/2017 10:14 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>
>> Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...
>>
>> Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for it
>> with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps with a
>> campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > > wrote:
>>
>> I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in
>> confusion
>> is really troubling...
>>
>>
>> On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
>>  > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've
>> been
>>  > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
>>  >
>>  > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
>>  > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
>> might be
>>  > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of
>> missed
>>  > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
>>  > report but it would take another week for you to deputize.
>> Rulekeepor
>>  > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
>>  > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a
>> report).
>>  > I think every other office is OK?
>>  >
>>  > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my
>> weeklies
>>  > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them
>> are
>>  > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
>>  > important.
>>  >
>>  > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt > > wrote:
>>  >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada > > wrote:
>>  >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>>  >>
>>  >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
>> keeping them up
>>  >> to date.
>>  >>
>>  >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
>> original
>>  >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
>> be the
>>  >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
>>  >
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> 
>>
>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> --
> Trigon



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> The difference might be that in 3409 the standard was the ordinary "by
> announcement" wheras here the rule involved itself specifies a
> heightened standard of clarity?

point taken.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Reuben Staley]

I'd be willing to do one or all of these things. I've been around for 
just under a month, so I think I know the gist of this game enough by 
now to have responsibilities.


On 10/21/2017 10:14 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...

Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for 
it with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps 
with a campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?


On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline > wrote:


I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in confusion
is really troubling...


On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
 > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
 > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
 >
 > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
 > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it
might be
 > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of missed
 > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
 > report but it would take another week for you to deputize. Rulekeepor
 > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
 > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a report).
 > I think every other office is OK?
 >
 > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies
 > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
 > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
 > important.
 >
 > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt > wrote:
 >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada > wrote:
 >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
 >>
 >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been
keeping them up
 >> to date.
 >>
 >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the
original
 >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may
be the
 >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
 >
 >


 
	Virus-free. www.avg.com 
 



<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>


--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:
>   We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> 
> 
> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up 
> to date.
> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original 
> precedent that 
> I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the single most common 
> CFJ text 
> of all time). 

That case specifically references CFJ 2897.  2897 is interesting, because 
it's a specific policy reversal, to quote Judge ais523:

> The problem is that game
> custom and past CFJs give a strong indication that ehird's attempt
> failed; but the rules, to me, give a weak indication that it succeeded,
> and they take precedence.
(https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2897)

So Judge ais523 specifically examined prior-to-2897 precedents and custom,
and made the decision that the rules took precedence, and implied that going
forward subject lines were ok (with some caveats).  That seems like a
definitive landmark to take as a starting point for assuming they can work
in many circumstances (maybe with clarity tests like in CFJ 3409).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

The difference might be that in 3409 the standard was the ordinary "by
announcement" wheras here the rule involved itself specifies a
heightened standard of clarity?

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Just grepped the cases directory.  The recent one was 3501.  I remember
> it led to discussion, but the action in question was registration which
> is a special case (you're allowed to be more unclear in registration
> than for most things).
>
> The next one back is 3409.  It proposes some tests for whether a subject
> line works:
>
>> The "success" of information in a subject line has been found in
>> the past to depend on the clarity of the message text.  Here are
>> some possible tests of effectiveness:
>>1.  Are there multiple actions that can be inferred?  No.
>>2.  Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?  No.
>>   3.  Is timing an issue?  (multiple events in the message).  No.
>>4.  Is anything purposefully obfuscated?  No.
>>5.  Does the message text infer the type of action that can be
>>made clear from the subject line?  (A CFJ is quoted with the
>>term CFJ being fairly clear).
> (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3409)
>
> I'd say that Notice of Honour passes these tests, personally.
>
> On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> > It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
>> > anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
>> > action in the subject line). I couldn't tell you exactly where or
>> > which CFJs although I'm sure G or Orjan could. Problem with
>> > cntrl-F-ing the CFJ database is that CFJ statements often have little
>> > to do with the issue contained in them (recent example: it's hard to
>> > tell that the only useful precedent on agencies is under the statement
>> > "C<3M is an agency" while other CFJs with similar statements are
>> > worthless).
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
>> >> This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
>> >> Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for 
>> >> being
>> >> slack on reporting.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

Huh, you're right, I could have sworn I saw them there...

Rulekeepor is definitely out of date on SLRs; anyone could deputise for it
with appropriate notice. They could also start an election, perhaps with a
campaign pledge to reinstate CFJ annotations?

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 at 00:13 Madeline  wrote:

> I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in confusion
> is really troubling...
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:
> > The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
> > a player. I think Gaelan took them out.
> >
> > JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
> > late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it might be
> > just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of missed
> > him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
> > report but it would take another week for you to deputize. Rulekeepor
> > I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
> > Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a report).
> > I think every other office is OK?
> >
> > And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies
> > to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
> > really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
> > important.
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> >>
> >> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping
> them up
> >> to date.
> >>
> >> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
> >> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
> >> single most common CFJ text of all time).
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Madeline]

I mean... I had noticed :P and the ADoP office itself being in confusion 
is really troubling...



On 2017-10-22 15:10, VJ Rada wrote:

The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
a player. I think Gaelan took them out.

JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it might be
just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of missed
him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
report but it would take another week for you to deputize. Rulekeepor
I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a report).
I think every other office is OK?

And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies
to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
important.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:

We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.


The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
to date.

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
single most common CFJ text of all time).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

The FLR hasn't had them in a long time: certainly not since I've been
a player. I think Gaelan took them out.

JDGA: I'm ironically not sure what you can deputize for because I'm
late on my ADoP report (and am no longer ADoP) but I think it might be
just rulekeepor? o hasn't posted in about a week (I've kind of missed
him already haha) so it seems likely that he might miss this week's
report but it would take another week for you to deputize. Rulekeepor
I think you can next week but not this week (or next month because
Gaelan updated the FLR last month but forgot to file it as a report).
I think every other office is OK?

And regarding the uploading: I certainly haven't uploaded my weeklies
to the website and nobody's really noticed. I think none of them are
really in date rip. Except, obviously, uploading the ruleset is
important.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>
>
> The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
> to date.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
> precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
> single most common CFJ text of all time).



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

Just grepped the cases directory.  The recent one was 3501.  I remember
it led to discussion, but the action in question was registration which
is a special case (you're allowed to be more unclear in registration
than for most things).

The next one back is 3409.  It proposes some tests for whether a subject
line works:

> The "success" of information in a subject line has been found in
> the past to depend on the clarity of the message text.  Here are
> some possible tests of effectiveness:
>1.  Are there multiple actions that can be inferred?  No.
>2.  Is there a real doubt as to what is intended?  No.
>   3.  Is timing an issue?  (multiple events in the message).  No.
>4.  Is anything purposefully obfuscated?  No.
>5.  Does the message text infer the type of action that can be
>made clear from the subject line?  (A CFJ is quoted with the
>term CFJ being fairly clear).
(https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3409)

I'd say that Notice of Honour passes these tests, personally.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> > It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
> > anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
> > action in the subject line). I couldn't tell you exactly where or
> > which CFJs although I'm sure G or Orjan could. Problem with
> > cntrl-F-ing the CFJ database is that CFJ statements often have little
> > to do with the issue contained in them (recent example: it's hard to
> > tell that the only useful precedent on agencies is under the statement
> > "C<3M is an agency" while other CFJs with similar statements are
> > worthless).
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
> >> This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
> >> Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for 
> >> being
> >> slack on reporting.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:54 VJ Rada  wrote:

> We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.
>

The FLR has them, although I do not know if Gaelan has been keeping them up
to date.

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2909 is the original
precedent that I'm aware of (fun fact: "Wooble is a player" may be the
single most common CFJ text of all time).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Madeline]

Could be a potential option for the HLR? (if officialising that is even 
a good idea)
Would be really useful to have if we don't just want to officially add 
(or overrule) CFJs through proposal, though. There really is a lot to 
absorb as a newbie :P
As for the late reports in offices, is there much that can be done 
there? I'm half-tempted to look into deputising, but worried about 
overwhelming myself or burning out (plus I have no idea how to upload to 
the website)



On 2017-10-22 14:53, VJ Rada wrote:

We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
action in the subject line). I couldn't tell you exactly where or
which CFJs although I'm sure G or Orjan could. Problem with
cntrl-F-ing the CFJ database is that CFJ statements often have little
to do with the issue contained in them (recent example: it's hard to
tell that the only useful precedent on agencies is under the statement
"C<3M is an agency" while other CFJs with similar statements are
worthless).

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
slack on reporting.



--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

We really need to bring back rule annotations for important CFJs.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
> anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
> action in the subject line). I couldn't tell you exactly where or
> which CFJs although I'm sure G or Orjan could. Problem with
> cntrl-F-ing the CFJ database is that CFJ statements often have little
> to do with the issue contained in them (recent example: it's hard to
> tell that the only useful precedent on agencies is under the statement
> "C<3M is an agency" while other CFJs with similar statements are
> worthless).
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
>> This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
>> Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
>> slack on reporting.
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

It's established precedent actually that subject-lines don't count for
anything unless specifically mentioned in the message (eg, I do the
action in the subject line). I couldn't tell you exactly where or
which CFJs although I'm sure G or Orjan could. Problem with
cntrl-F-ing the CFJ database is that CFJ statements often have little
to do with the issue contained in them (recent example: it's hard to
tell that the only useful precedent on agencies is under the statement
"C<3M is an agency" while other CFJs with similar statements are
worthless).

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
> This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
> Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
> slack on reporting.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

Anyone remember which CFJ it was in (<6 months ago).  I'm drawing a blank.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:
> Is there any real reason for the subject line not to count, incidentally, or
> is it worth CFJing?
> 
> 
> On 2017-10-22 14:46, Telnaior wrote:
> > This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
> > Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
> > slack on reporting.
> 
> 
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

We've recently re-assessed whether subject lines have meaning,
I think a recent CFJ allowed it.  The exact text of the rule is 
that a Notice must
 "Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour"
I believe the subject line and context are sufficiently clear
so that would be how I'd reflect it in my report (I'd understand
a CFJ though, it's a borderline case).

Still, even if this is allowed, it's good form to have it in the 
message text.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:42 Telnaior  wrote:
>   Found it :D
>   Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being 
> slack on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?)
> 
> 
> E is. I believe this fails, however, for not clearly specifying it is a 
> notice of honour?
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Madeline]

Is there any real reason for the subject line not to count, 
incidentally, or is it worth CFJing?



On 2017-10-22 14:46, Telnaior wrote:

This is a notice of honour. (Apparently the subject line doesn't count)
Alexis gains a Karma for being extra helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for 
being slack on reporting.

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[VJ Rada]

That message isn't effective iirc. I think you have to specifically
designate it as a notice of honour.

---1 minute later---
Yeah, "For a Notice of Honour to be valid, it must:
   1.  Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour"


On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
> Found it :D
> Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being slack
> on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?)
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 14:30, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> It was in one of the last two proposal resolutions. Our rulekeepor has been
> a bit slow as of late.
>
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:29 Madeline  wrote:
>>
>> Thankyou :D
>> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or
>> where it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where it was
>> set up, that might be helpful...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> > This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking
>> > standard culling of inactive players, and Telnaior gains a Karma for
>> > coming back with vigour.
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:42 Telnaior  wrote:

> Found it :D
> Alexis gains a Karma for being helpful, Gaelan loses a Karma for being
> slack on reporting (I think he's Rulekeepor?)
>

E is. I believe this fails, however, for not clearly specifying it is a
notice of honour?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

Check out the text of proposal 7904, here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-October/011867.html

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Madeline wrote:

> Thankyou :D
> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or where
> it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where it was set up, that
> might be helpful...
> 
> 
> On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking standard
> > culling of inactive players, and Telnaior gains a Karma for coming back with
> > vigour.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Alexis Hunt]

It was in one of the last two proposal resolutions. Our rulekeepor has been
a bit slow as of late.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 at 23:29 Madeline  wrote:

> Thankyou :D
> Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or
> where it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where it was
> set up, that might be helpful...
>
>
> On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking
> > standard culling of inactive players, and Telnaior gains a Karma for
> > coming back with vigour.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Madeline]

Thankyou :D
Though I haven't been able to figure out what the karma actually is or 
where it comes from? If someone could explain or link to where it was 
set up, that might be helpful...



On 2017-10-22 13:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:
This is a Notice of Honour: Cuddle Beam loses a Karma for blocking 
standard culling of inactive players, and Telnaior gains a Karma for 
coming back with vigour.

DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Kerim Aydin]

taking from inactives was my secondary thought on policy, if random
doesn't work out.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> This is a notice of honour. My policy is to remove karma from
> inactives in protest at their nonexistence (unless one of y'all really
> cheeses me off)
> 
> -1 karma from Murphy for not existing.
> +1 karma to ATMunn for being an excellent player already, and good proposals.
> 
> I also change my emotion to indifferent because I'm not really that
> sorrowful over this proposal passing anymore.
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada