Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"
(how do I always manage to press tab & enter to send a message prematurely?) It should *be* mostly irrelevant though, I made sure *to* construct & upgrade the buildings (to a lower level, however) even for the case the scam didn't work. ~Corona On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:18 PM, Corona wrote: > I support G.'s intent to enter the judgement into Moot. It should mostly > irrelevant though, I made sure construct & upgrade the buildings even for > the case the scam didn't work. > > ~Corona > > On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> That's a neat little trick Aris but maybe not exactly fair :) >> >> I intend to enter the below judgement into Moot, with 2 support. >> >> SUMMARY: (especially for Corona's attention). >> >> Below, I delivered a judgement that your scam didn't work at all. But in >> conversation, there was support for the other side of your argument (that >> the scam did work). Unless people generally agree with my reasoning that >> the scam didn't work (under "argument for FALSE", below), the best way to >> resolve this is a Moot (i.e. vote on whether my judgement is correct). >> >> If you want to take the Moot Route, support my intent... >> >> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> > Well, that's interesting. You're ineligible, but I that isn't a >> requirement >> > for using certiorari. The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with >> the >> > interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to >> > enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:10 PM Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of >> the >> > > greater good, it's now. >> > > >> > > I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below >> case >> > > to myself. >> > > >> > > I deliver the following judgement: >> > > FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > > > I CFJ on: If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets, >> > > without >> > > > specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by >> transferring >> > > > those assets to anyone. >> > > > >> > > > Arguments: >> > > > >> > > > Straightforward argument for TRUE: >> > > > R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for >> > > transfer: >> > > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by >> > > > > announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to >> > > > > modification by its backing document. >> > > > >> > > > Straightforward argument for FALSE: >> > > > Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause >> in >> > > > R2166: >> > > > > If a rule, proposal, or other >> > > > > competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the >> balance >> > > > > of an entity without specifying a source or destination, >> then the >> > > > > currency is created or destroyed as needed. >> > > > so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for >> doing >> > > > something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer). >> >> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with the >> interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to >> enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent. > > What's the Agoran Consent part for? I can't find that in relation to Moots. It isn't in the rule for moots. The requirement is actually 2 support. However, R1728(II)(6) allows me to affix additional conditions, which I just did. I don't see any point in suspending your judgement if people actually support it. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > Well, that's interesting. You're ineligible, but I that isn't a requirement > for using certiorari. Yah I figured that if Cabinet orders are inherently political, having the Prime Minister judge eir own case wasn't outside of the spirit of that so it was a feature not a bug. (and given that multiple people have found both sides of the arguments plausible, I figured we were headed for moot anyway). > The ruling isn't unreasonable, and comports with the > interest of the game. Intend, with both 2 support and Agoran consent, to > enter this judgement into moot. I object to my own intent. What's the Agoran Consent part for? I can't find that in relation to Moots. > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > Oh heck, if there's a time for a political power play in pursuit of the > > greater good, it's now. > > > > I issue a Cabinet Order of Certiorari (Arbitor) to assign the below case > > to myself. > > > > I deliver the following judgement: > > FALSE, based on the Caller's Arguments for FALSE. > > > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I CFJ on: If the Rules say you CAN do something by paying assets, > > without > > > specifying a destination for the payment, you CAN do it by transferring > > > those assets to anyone. > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > > > Straightforward argument for TRUE: > > > R2166 overrides common definitions by making "pay" a synonym for > > transfer: > > > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. paid, given) by > > > > announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to > > > > modification by its backing document. > > > > > > Straightforward argument for FALSE: > > > Payments without destination are error-trapped by this later clause in > > > R2166: > > > > If a rule, proposal, or other > > > > competent authority attempts to increase or decrease the balance > > > > of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the > > > > currency is created or destroyed as needed. > > > so if "payment without destination" is a method in the rules for doing > > > something, it happens via asset destruction only (not transfer). > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > This CFJ doen't answer the question. > > > > > > > > The question is: If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" > > without > > > > specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone? (the > > important > > > > thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action). > > > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > > > > > also in the > > > > > " > > > > > doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination? > > > > > " > > > > > thread > > > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange < > > edwardostra...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer > > them to > > > > > anyone" > > > > > > > > > > > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine > > > > > > discussion thread. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"
This CFJ doen't answer the question. The question is: If the Rule says you CAN do something by "paying" without specifying a destination, can you do it by paying anyone? (the important thing is triggering the CAN that's tied to the action). On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Corona wrote: > also in the > " > doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination? > " > thread > > ~Corona > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange > wrote: > > > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer them to > anyone" > > > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine > > discussion thread. > > -- > > From V.J. Rada >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ re "pay"
also in the " doesn't THIS apply to "pay" without a destination? " thread ~Corona On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > > I call a CFJ with the statement "To "pay" assets is to transfer them to anyone" > > many arguments in the recent Setting up money-printing machine > discussion thread. > -- > From V.J. Rada
