Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
Well, e probably succeeded in solving the past power problem. E doesn’t
seem to have succeeded with preventing retroaction though.

-Aris

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:50 PM omd  wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook  wrote:
> > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
> >
> > I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
> > the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
> > play out.
>
> FWIW, that language originated with this proposal.  Based on the
> proposal comment and the wording itself, I think ais523 *was* trying
> to have it avoid amending the past – though e didn't necessarily
> succeed, considering the later judgements (including the current
> ones).
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 6930 (Ordinary, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by ais523
>
> Fix ratification
>
> In rule 1551, replace
> {{{
>  When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is minimally
>  modified so that the ratified document was completely true and
>  accurate at the time it was published.
> }}}
> with
> {{{
>  When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified to
>  what it would be if the ratified document had, at the time of its
>  publication, minimally changed the gamestate to make that document
>  completely true and accurate (ignoring, for the purposes of
>  calculating the results of that hypothetical change, restrictions
>  on the document's abilities to make such changes applied by the
>  rules or similar documents).
> }}}
>
> [In other words, this proposal causes ratification to calculate an
> effect in the past and apply it to the present, rather than the other
> way round, which is rather dubious. Additionally, avoids issues with
> things like Power in the past preventing the change happening; and
> making it clear that the "minimally" does not exclude knock-on effects.]
>


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread omd
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook  wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
> the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
> play out.

FWIW, that language originated with this proposal.  Based on the
proposal comment and the wording itself, I think ais523 *was* trying
to have it avoid amending the past – though e didn't necessarily
succeed, considering the later judgements (including the current
ones).

}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{

Proposal 6930 (Ordinary, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by ais523

Fix ratification

In rule 1551, replace
{{{
 When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is minimally
 modified so that the ratified document was completely true and
 accurate at the time it was published.
}}}
with
{{{
 When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified to
 what it would be if the ratified document had, at the time of its
 publication, minimally changed the gamestate to make that document
 completely true and accurate (ignoring, for the purposes of
 calculating the results of that hypothetical change, restrictions
 on the document's abilities to make such changes applied by the
 rules or similar documents).
}}}

[In other words, this proposal causes ratification to calculate an
effect in the past and apply it to the present, rather than the other
way round, which is rather dubious. Additionally, avoids issues with
things like Power in the past preventing the change happening; and
making it clear that the "minimally" does not exclude knock-on effects.]


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Hm, maybe in the hypothetical timeline the act of publishing can be thought
of as performative, so it's by definition correct. At least, that's how I
think of messages that successfully cause actions to be performed.

Still thinking about CFJ retroactivity though.

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:36 James Cook,  wrote:

> In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
> inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
> publish inaccurate information in an official report,  but doesn't comment
> on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
> instant if publication, that's exactly when the change happened, so I'm not
> sure what to make of it.
>
> Also there's still the issue of the CFJ being called before it
> self-ratified. I believe when rules refer to the past that's affected by
> ratification, but I'm not sure about CFJs, which are explicitly said to be
> about the legal situation at the time.
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux,  wrote:
>
>> I think the self ratification makes it retroactively  accurate though...
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook  wrote:
>>
>> > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in
>> the
>> > reports?
>> >
>> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
>> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>> > >
>> > > -Aris
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook 
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified
>> when
>> > > the
>> > > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
>> > false
>> > > > at that exact time.
>> > > >
>> > > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal
>> to
>> > > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I
>> think
>> > it
>> > > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be
>> judged
>> > > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely
>> sure,
>> > > but
>> > > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
>> > > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
>> > publish,
>> > > or
>> > > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, 
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did.
>> So
>> > I
>> > > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements:
>> D.
>> > > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
>> > > document.
>> > > > > > E said:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
>> > true
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D.
>> Margaux's
>> > > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
>> > > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
>> > provision
>> > > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past
>> time
>> > as
>> > > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
>> > > clearly
>> > > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't
>> work
>> > > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still
>> has
>> > > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook 
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and
>> forth
>> > on
>> > > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send
>> it
>> > out
>> > > > > > > the next couple of days.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most
>> recent
>> > > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
>> > > > > effective."
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
>> > Margaux
>> > > > has
>> > > > > > > more than 0 blots."
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > 1. Arguments
>> > > > > > > 
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
>> > > around
>> > > > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
>> > > > > "[Referee]
>> > > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
publish inaccurate information in an official report,  but doesn't comment
on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
instant if publication, that's exactly when the change happened, so I'm not
sure what to make of it.

Also there's still the issue of the CFJ being called before it
self-ratified. I believe when rules refer to the past that's affected by
ratification, but I'm not sure about CFJs, which are explicitly said to be
about the legal situation at the time.

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux,  wrote:

> I think the self ratification makes it retroactively  accurate though...
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in
> the
> > reports?
> >
> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified
> when
> > > the
> > > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> > false
> > > > at that exact time.
> > > >
> > > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal
> to
> > > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> > it
> > > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely
> sure,
> > > but
> > > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> > publish,
> > > or
> > > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did.
> So
> > I
> > > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > > document.
> > > > > > E said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> > true
> > > > at
> > > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D.
> Margaux's
> > > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> > provision
> > > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> > as
> > > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > > clearly
> > > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't
> work
> > > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and
> forth
> > on
> > > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> > out
> > > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most
> recent
> > > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > > > effective."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
> > Margaux
> > > > has
> > > > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> > > around
> > > > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > > > "[Referee]
> > > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to
> repeat
> > > > > > > everything here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > > > =
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D.
> > Margaux
> > > > has
> > > > > 0
> > > > > > >   blots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
Ahh, yes, that is embarrassing. The accuracy of the report is rather the
entire point of the case. I got so caught up in the question of how the
retroactivity worked out that I forgot the actual object of the case. My
apologies.

-Aris

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:22 PM James Cook  wrote:

> Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
> reports?
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> > the
> > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> false
> > > at that exact time.
> > >
> > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> it
> > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> > but
> > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> publish,
> > or
> > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > >
> > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So
> I
> > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > document.
> > > > > E said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> true
> > > at
> > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> provision
> > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> as
> > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > clearly
> > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth
> on
> > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> out
> > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > > effective."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
> Margaux
> > > has
> > > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> > around
> > > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > > "[Referee]
> > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > > everything here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > > =
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D.
> Margaux
> > > has
> > > > 0
> > > > > >   blots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> > > > ratify
> > > > > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace
> > > Rules”
> > > > > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > > > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by
> > the
> > > > > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor
> > pursuant
> > > to
> > > > > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the
> > > 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
I think the self ratification makes it retroactively  accurate though...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook  wrote:

> Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
> reports?
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> > the
> > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> false
> > > at that exact time.
> > >
> > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> it
> > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> > but
> > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> publish,
> > or
> > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > >
> > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So
> I
> > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > document.
> > > > > E said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> true
> > > at
> > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> provision
> > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> as
> > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > clearly
> > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth
> on
> > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> out
> > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > > effective."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
> Margaux
> > > has
> > > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> > around
> > > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > > "[Referee]
> > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > > everything here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > > =
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D.
> Margaux
> > > has
> > > > 0
> > > > > >   blots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> > > > ratify
> > > > > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace
> > > Rules”
> > > > > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > > > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by
> > the
> > > > > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor
> > pursuant
> > > to
> > > > > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the
> > > following
> > > > > >   weekly reports:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is
> > the
> > > > > >   recordkeepor 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
reports?

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> the
> > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
> > at that exact time.
> >
> > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think it
> > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> but
> > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> >
> > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to publish,
> or
> > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> >
> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
> > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> document.
> > > > E said:
> > > >
> > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true
> > at
> > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > >
> > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> clearly
> > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > >
> > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > >
> > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > effective."
> > > > >
> > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux
> > has
> > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> around
> > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > "[Referee]
> > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > everything here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > =
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > >
> > > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux
> > has
> > > 0
> > > > >   blots.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> > > ratify
> > > > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > > >
> > > > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace
> > Rules”
> > > > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > > >
> > > > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by
> the
> > > > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor
> pursuant
> > to
> > > > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the
> > following
> > > > >   weekly reports:
> > > > >
> > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is
> the
> > > > >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > > > >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their
> > default
> > > > >   value.}
> > > > >
> > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > > > >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > > > >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> > > 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?

-Aris

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook  wrote:

> In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
> report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
> at that exact time.
>
> Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think it
> was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure, but
> I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
>
> I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to publish, or
> whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux,  wrote:
>
> > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
> > think we are in the same place anyway.
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> > > E said:
> > >
> > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true
> at
> > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > >
> > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
> > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > >
> > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > >
> > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > the next couple of days.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > effective."
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux
> has
> > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > >
> > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > "[Referee]
> > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > everything here.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > =
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > >
> > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux
> has
> > 0
> > > >   blots.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > >
> > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> > ratify
> > > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > >
> > > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace
> Rules”
> > > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > >
> > > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > >
> > > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant
> to
> > > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > >
> > > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the
> following
> > > >   weekly reports:
> > > >
> > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > > >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > > >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their
> default
> > > >   value.}
> > > >
> > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > > >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > > >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > > >
> > > >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > >   information in the above reports.
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > > >
> > > >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on
> eir
> > > >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > > >   pointed".
> > > >
> > > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > > >
> > > >   

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
at that exact time.

Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think it
was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure, but
I lean toward saying it's TRUE.

I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to publish, or
whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux,  wrote:

> Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
> think we are in the same place anyway.
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> > E said:
> >
> > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at
> > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> >
> > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> > being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
> > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> >
> > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook  wrote:
> > >
> > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > >
> > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > the next couple of days.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > >
> > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> effective."
> > >
> > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > more than 0 blots."
> > >
> > > 1. Arguments
> > > 
> > >
> > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> "[Referee]
> > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > everything here.
> > >
> > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > =
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > >
> > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has
> 0
> > >   blots.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > >
> > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> ratify
> > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > >
> > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > >
> > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > >
> > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > >
> > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > >
> > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > >   weekly reports:
> > >
> > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > >   value.}
> > >
> > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> value.}
> > >
> > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > >
> > >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > >   information in the above reports.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > >
> > >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > >   pointed".
> > >
> > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > >
> > >   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand
> of
> > >   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following
> message:
> > >
> > >   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> > in the
> > >   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> > good of
> > >   > the game, but there were 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook  wrote:

> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> E said:
>
> > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at
> the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
> delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
>
> So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > 
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> > 
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> >   blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> >   weekly reports:
> >
> >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> >   value.}
> >
> >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> >   information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> >   pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> >   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> >   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> >   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the
> >   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> >   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> >   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> >   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> of the
> >   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
> >   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
> >   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> >   >
> >   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> D.
> >   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> required
> >   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> >   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> >   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> >   ratify.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> >   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
> 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
E said:

> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the 
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:

But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.

So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook  wrote:
>
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.
>
> I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> the next couple of days.
>
> 
>
> This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
>
> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
>
> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> more than 0 blots."
>
> 1. Arguments
> 
>
> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> everything here.
>
> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> =
>
> 2019-05-20 01:25
>
>   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
>   blots.
>
> 2019-05-20 20:32
>
>   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
>   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
>
>   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
>   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
>   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
>   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
>   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
>   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
>   the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> 2019-05-21 10:20
>
>   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
>   weekly reports:
>
>   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
>   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
>   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
>   value.}
>
>   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
>   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
>   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> 2019-05-25 22:02
>
>   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
>   information in the above reports.
>
> 2019-05-25 22:54
>
>   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
>   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
>   pointed".
>
> 2019-05-26 22:43
>
>   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
>   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
>
>   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
>   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good 
> of
>   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
>   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause 
> any
>   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
>   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
>   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider 
> and
>   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>   >
>   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
>   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
>   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
>   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
>
> 2019-05-26 22:50
>
>   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
>   ratify.
>
> 2019-05-27 14:11
>
>   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
>
> 2019-05-27 19:58
>
>   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
>
> 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> ==
>
> It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
>
> I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the
replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying
prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and
forward.

Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely:

> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> It is not unusual to infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the
> rules never directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A
> Call for Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they
> are associated with statements, can be judged, etc. I believe this is
> supported by Rule 217's instruction to use common sense.
>
> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> concept of ratification:
>
> Rule 1551 says:
>
> > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
> > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
>
> Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of
> several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the
> number of voters indicated", etc.
>
> In both cases, the rules talk about ratifying facts about the past.
> Ratification involves a hypothetical gamestate minimally modified to
> make these facts about the past true, which clarifies for us that the
> definition of gamestate includes facts about the past. It also seems
> likely that the new gamestate after the ratification is intended to
> include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at
> the same clarification.


On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:24, James Cook  wrote:
>
> Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:
>
> > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
> >
> > Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using
> > anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us
> > augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to
> > infer meanings of terms in this way.  For example, the rules never
> > directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for
> > Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are
> > associated with statements, can be judged, etc.
> >
> > In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> > gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> > concept of ratification:
>
> I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to
> be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger
> argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about
> properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the
> definition.
>
> On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> >
> > The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
> > this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> > > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
> > >
> > > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> > >
> > > You write in 7A:
> > > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> > >
> > > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> > > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> > > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> > >
> > > Jason Cobb
> > > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > >
> > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > the next couple of days.
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > >
> > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> IMO the biggest reason is that it makes it clear what situations cause
> the rule to be outpowered (i.e. if it tries to change something in the
> present that can't be changed, even if it could have been legally
> changed under thhe past ruleset at the time).

Ah, that's another good reason. (I didn't get to your message before
answering Walker's message.)


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:

> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using
> anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us
> augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to
> infer meanings of terms in this way.  For example, the rules never
> directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for
> Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are
> associated with statements, can be judged, etc.
>
> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> concept of ratification:

I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to
be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger
argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about
properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the
definition.

On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
> this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
>
> -Aris
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
> >
> > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> >
> > You write in 7A:
> > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> >
> > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > >
> > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > the next couple of days.
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > >
> > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> > >
> > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > more than 0 blots."
> > >
> > > 1. Arguments
> > > 
> > >
> > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > everything here.
> > >
> > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > =
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > >
> > >The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > >blots.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > >
> > >D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > >it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > >
> > >{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > >have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > >
> > >Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > >Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > >
> > >There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > >Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > >the Spaaace Rules. }
> > >
> > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > >
> > >D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > >weekly reports:
> > >
> > >{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > >recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > >switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > >value.}
> > >
> > >{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > >recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > >switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> > >
> > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > >
> > >omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > >information in the above reports.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > >
> > >D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > >behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > >pointed".
> > >
> > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > >
> > >Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Aris Merchant
The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.

-Aris



On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
>
> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
>
> You write in 7A:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
>
> This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
>
> Jason Cobb
> On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > 
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> > 
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> >The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> >blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> >D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> >it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> >{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> >have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> >Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> >Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> >There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> >Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> >the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> >D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> >weekly reports:
> >
> >{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> >recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> >switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> >value.}
> >
> >{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> >recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> >switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> >omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> >information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> >D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> >behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> >pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> >Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> >Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> >> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the
> >> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> >> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> >> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> >> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> of the
> >> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
> >> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
> >> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> >>
> >> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on
> D.
> >> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> required
> >> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> >> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> >D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> >ratify.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> >D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
> >Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> >
> > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at
the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences
play out.

If *only* the record-of-the-past part of the gamestate were changed,
maybe the consequences would not be changed, e.g. D. Margaux would
still have blots, even though now e was never fined.

> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
> otherwise via legal fiction?
> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
> ratification.

I think these are strong reasons. The past-not-included interpretation
feels nicer and more obvious to me, and I tried to capture some of
that feeling in Section 6. But I currently feel that the other
arguments outweigh this, no matter how indignant I feel about my prior
intuition being wrong.


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb

[Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]

I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.

You write in 7A:
"In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."

This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
"Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using 
direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be 
concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined 
concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."


Jason Cobb
On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:

Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.

I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.



This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.

CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."

CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."

1. Arguments


There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
everything here.

2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=

2019-05-20 01:25

   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
   blots.

2019-05-20 20:32

   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":

   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.

   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
   Spaaace Rules has its default value.

   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
   the Spaaace Rules. }

2019-05-21 10:20

   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
   weekly reports:

   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
   value.}

   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}

2019-05-25 22:02

   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
   information in the above reports.

2019-05-25 22:54

   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
   pointed".

2019-05-26 22:43

   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:

   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
   >
   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.

2019-05-26 22:50

   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
   ratify.

2019-05-27 14:11

   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.

2019-05-27 19:58

   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.

3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
==

It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.

I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
INEFFECTIVE if...").

Condition 1 of Rule 2531:

The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own
> understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical,
> well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider
> this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly
> amazing. I’m very happy I assigned you to judge this case.

Thanks! That was a nice message to wake up to.


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote:
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

IMO the biggest reason is that it makes it clear what situations cause
the rule to be outpowered (i.e. if it tries to change something in the
present that can't be changed, even if it could have been legally
changed under thhe past ruleset at the time).

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a
reply to Charles Walker.

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

> I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
>
> You write:
> "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
>
> This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:12 PM Charles Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
>> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
>> > 3726 a couple of times.
>>
>> Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
>> into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
>> argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
>> have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.
>>
>> > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
>> > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
>> > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
>>
>> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
>> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
>> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
>> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>>
>> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
>> otherwise via legal fiction?
>> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
>> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
>> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
>> ratification.
>>
>


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.

You write:
"In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."

This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
"Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts
is false does not constitute proof that it is true."

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:12 PM Charles Walker 
wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
>
> Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
> into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
> argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
> have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.
>
> > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
>
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
> the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
> tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
> compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):
>
> - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
> otherwise via legal fiction?
> - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
> in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
> publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
> ratification.
>


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Charles Walker
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook  wrote:
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.

Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back
into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of
argument that you suggested in the initial discussion, but you seem to
have found good reasons why the past is part of the gamestate.

> (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other way,
> e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification isn't
> mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)

R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending
the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have
tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly
compelling in the face of your arguments in (7):

- Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend
otherwise via legal fiction?
- It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point
in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the
publication of the ratified document and T is the time of
ratification.


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Aris Merchant
I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own
understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical,
well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider
this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly
amazing. I’m very happy I assigned you to judge this case.

This ruling opens up some potential problems, arising from a lack of
regulation in the field. I’m not going to talk about them until I have a
fix, because some of them might be therotically abstractly exploitable
(don’t go looking for them in the rules; you won’t find them). I’ll put
something together in the next few weeks that will plug them and clarify
this area of law. I already have an idea.

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM James Cook  wrote:

> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.
>
> I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> the next couple of days.
>
> 
>
> This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
>
> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
>
> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> more than 0 blots."
>
> 1. Arguments
> 
>
> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> everything here.
>
> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> =
>
> 2019-05-20 01:25
>
>   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
>   blots.
>
> 2019-05-20 20:32
>
>   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
>   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
>
>   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
>   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
>   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
>   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
>   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
>   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
>   the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> 2019-05-21 10:20
>
>   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
>   weekly reports:
>
>   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
>   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
>   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
>   value.}
>
>   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
>   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
>   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> 2019-05-25 22:02
>
>   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
>   information in the above reports.
>
> 2019-05-25 22:54
>
>   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
>   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
>   pointed".
>
> 2019-05-26 22:43
>
>   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
>   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
>
>   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> the
>   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
>   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
>   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
>   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of
> the
>   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
>   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
>   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>   >
>   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
>   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
>   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
>   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
>
> 2019-05-26 22:50
>
>   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
>   ratify.
>
> 2019-05-27 14:11
>
>   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
>
> 2019-05-27 19:58
>
>   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
>
> 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> ==
>
> It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
>
> I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Oops, thanks, updated.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
> > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
> > be doubt about this.
>
> > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
> > =
>
> Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped
> FALSE and TRUE at these points.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Thanks, noted.

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
> a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > 
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> > 
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> >   blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> >   weekly reports:
> >
> >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> >   value.}
> >
> >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> >   information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> >   pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> >   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> >   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> >   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> > the
> >   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> > good of
> >   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> >   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> > cause any
> >   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of
> > the
> >   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> > though,
> >   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> > consider and
> >   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> >   >
> >   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> >   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> >   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> >   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> >   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> >   ratify.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> >   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
> >   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> >
> > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > ==
> >
> > It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> > have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
> >
> > I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> > by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> > Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
> > of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> > INEFFECTIVE if...").
> >
> > Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
> >
> > The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
> > the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The 

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote:


I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will
judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could
be doubt about this.



6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
=


Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped 
FALSE and TRUE at these points.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)

Jason Cobb


On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook  wrote:

> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.
>
> I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> the next couple of days.
>
> 
>
> This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
>
> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
>
> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> more than 0 blots."
>
> 1. Arguments
> 
>
> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> everything here.
>
> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> =
>
> 2019-05-20 01:25
>
>   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
>   blots.
>
> 2019-05-20 20:32
>
>   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
>   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
>
>   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
>   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
>   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
>   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
>   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
>   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
>   the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> 2019-05-21 10:20
>
>   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
>   weekly reports:
>
>   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
>   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
>   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
>   value.}
>
>   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
>   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
>   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> 2019-05-25 22:02
>
>   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
>   information in the above reports.
>
> 2019-05-25 22:54
>
>   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
>   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
>   pointed".
>
> 2019-05-26 22:43
>
>   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
>   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
>
>   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> the
>   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
>   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
>   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
>   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of
> the
>   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
>   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> consider and
>   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>   >
>   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
>   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
>   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
>   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
>
> 2019-05-26 22:50
>
>   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
>   ratify.
>
> 2019-05-27 14:11
>
>   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
>
> 2019-05-27 19:58
>
>   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
>
> 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> ==
>
> It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
> have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
>
> I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
> by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
> Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
> of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> INEFFECTIVE if...").
>
> Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
>
> The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
> the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing
> the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is
> copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However,
> Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information
> in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition
> 1 does not