it's to be found in rule 217.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> > I suspect that the text is
> > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
>
> What's the four-part test?
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote:
> I suspect that the text is
> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied.
What's the four-part test?
From the beginning, this issue was always going to become a CFJ. I’m not an
interested party in the outcome, in the sense that the decision doesn’t give me
any particular benefit in the game. And the caller of the CFJ isn’t appealing
my reasoning, but instead agrees with it.
I did give my
I’m not sure how I feel about assigning you an appeal against your own
reasoning. I generally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not
sure that it's appropriate in this instance.
-Aris
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux wrote:
> I favour this CFJ
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at
I favour this CFJ
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca wrote:
> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
> question, barring Aris
> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:21 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
> We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be
> interpreted
> so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my
> interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will
> be criminally liable,
The difference though is that only a Herald CAN publish a Herald's report
and SHALL do so. When "vacant" is the Herald (and I admit that "vacant" is
the Herald and is liable, but this is because the Officeholder switch
specifically allows vacant as an officeholder), no provision of the rules
This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
question, barring Aris
{If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
players playing the game that week have violated the rule,
This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
(malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum
prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
criminal
Gah, sorry D. Margaux.
Forwarded Message
Subject:Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:30:06 -0400
From: Jason Cobb
To: D. Margaux
I'll point out that in that example, both parties were each committing
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> Under the present conditions,
> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should
> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t
> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that
Alright. I dispute your conclusions in these two paragraphs:
“Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by
paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least once
in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means that
“[f]ailing to
The officeholder switch for the office of Herald has been set to vacant for
approximately 5 weeks. By rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) and 2510
(Such is Karma), vacant SHALL publish the Herald's weekly report each week.
This has not happened for the past 5 weeks. At the same time
We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted
so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my
interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will
be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only
the
The Ritual, however, isn't one!
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an
> Officer
> > report. An Officer report SHALL be
On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote:
> I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer
> report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret
> such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but
> any
I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer
report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret
such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but
any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for
That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of the
rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your
interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in the
text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we
The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone
SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the
responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who
SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action
isn’t
I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't
specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a
specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly
unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual
was never explicitly
20 matches
Mail list logo
