Tanner Swett | 2 Oct 05:36 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BAK: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties

On Sep 14, 2014, at 6:32 PM, ais523 wrote:
> The below-quoted message appears to have got stuck in an email relay
> somewhere, and I'm worried it might not be in before the end of the
> week. Thus, this is an attempt to re-send it.
> 
> If I have not yet done so, I perform the below-quoted actions. Then I
> don't perform them again when the original email finally arrives.

You know, it's not obvious to me that "then I don't perform them again when the original email finally
arrives" is actually effective. I don't think it's possible to cancel a future message--if I say "I don't
perform the actions I say I perform in my next message", and then, in the next message, I say "I do X", then the
first message is irrelevant; I did, in fact, announce I was doing X.

Furthermore, case law seems to say that a message is "sent via" a forum around the time that it is *received*
by most subscribers to the forum (in the sense that the message has entered their technical domain of
control, not that they've actually looked at it). So the "original email" is, in fact, a future message in
the relevant legal sense.

One might argue that if you said "This is a second, redundant copy of a single message, not a second identical
message" in the second email, then both the first and second emails would be considered a single message,
and thus actions described in them would not be taken twice. It's certainly legally possible to send
multiple copies of a message and not have them be considered multiple messages (indeed, *all* public
messages are copied manifold), so I don't see any reason one couldn't do so simply by adding a statement
saying "this is not a second message".

—the Warrigal
Sprocklem | 1 Oct 20:45 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: sigh

On 2014-10-01 11:30, omd wrote:
> ais523 mentioned e already tried to contact Sprocklem, but I'll send
> an email just in case it helps.
> 
Sorry. I haven't spent as much time recently as I probably should have
looking at/doing things with Agora. I also have a CFJ that I haven't
resolved (I'll get on it right now).

On 2014-10-01 10:50, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I announce intent to assign the following case, called by omd, to a judge:
>> CFJ: Rule 2437 contains the text "omd CAN cause this rule to amend
>> itself by announcement."
> 
Do you want this office, or just want the job completed? If you want the
office then I'll just resign it, otherwise I'll (re)assign the
appropriate CFJs.

--

-- 
Sprocklem,
Arbitor

omd | 1 Oct 19:30 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: sigh

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> I announce intent to assign the following case, called by omd, to a judge:
>> CFJ: Rule 2437 contains the text "omd CAN cause this rule to amend
>> itself by announcement."

I think you need to explicitly mention deputisation...

ais523 mentioned e already tried to contact Sprocklem, but I'll send
an email just in case it helps.

omd | 1 Oct 05:44 2014
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh for god's sake, only one person bothers to reply to a dictatorship scam?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith <ais523 <at> bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> I thought it had been determined as part of game custom by now that 4
> days is exactly the length of time required to establish
> notice-to-all-players

Oh, there's one big piece of evidence that slipped my mind.  For over
a year in 2011-2012, dependent actions were defined like so:

       a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
          action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
          method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at
          most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
          objections or notice) at least X days earlier, where X is a
          number which depends on the Speed at the time of intention
          as follows: Slow: 5, Normal: 4, Fast: 2.

Moreover, the clause in Rule 2138 about amending itself with consent
existed for part of that time.  So in a non-scam context, everyone was
okay with sometimes considering as few as 48 hours sufficient for
public review, for both dependent actions in general and potentially
even rule changes (although the clause has never been exercised).

You could say that we're morally running Slow right now, but there was
no requirement for the Speed to reflect the actual level of activity.
IIRC, there was a period of time when it was Fast despite a relatively
low level - not as low as recently, though :(

omd | 30 Sep 22:06 2014
Picon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh for god's sake, only one person bothers to reply to a dictatorship scam?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alex Smith <ais523 <at> bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> Gratuitous arguments:
>
> I thought it had been determined as part of game custom by now that 4
> days is exactly the length of time required to establish
> notice-to-all-players; I implicitly assumed it was the case, and it's
> also the case in the quotes in omd's evidence. (Further evidence is that
> omd knew exactly what I was talking about when I said "a few hours
> early".)

I contest the idea that a term such as "a reasonably public process"
could be interpreted as equivalent to an exact number of hours, as
opposed to looking at the circumstances of each case.

Also, I don't think there has ever been a case where the necessity of
96 hours has been brought up.  In every case (all scams), there was no
particular hurry, so players simply waited that long to avoid any
ambiguity.

omd | 30 Sep 21:47 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Oh for god's sake, only one person bothers to reply to a dictatorship scam?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:36 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Alex Smith <ais523 <at> bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> You're a few hours too early.
>
> I know.
>
> CFJ: Rule 2437 contains the text "omd CAN cause this rule to amend
> itself by announcement."

As evidence, I submit the only bits of discussion I could find
regarding the "reasonably public process" requirement and four days.

In the comment to proposal 6158, which originally created the
requirement, G. wrote:

> This also means that the scam goal text of "X can change the rules by
> announcement" would no longer function, even if written into a power-3
> rule.  Though "X can change the rules by giving 4 days notice" or
> somesuch would probably suffice.  So if you get a power-3 scam, you'd
> have to make a slightly cleverer power grab.

In the judgement of CFJ 2697, I wrote:
> UNDETERMINED.  In general, if an active player is publicly requested,
> implicitly or explicitly, to review a document, then waiting four days
> is sufficient to give em a reasonable opportunity to review it.
> Simply publishing the document and waiting four days is not sufficient
> for this purpose: we don't expect every player to thoroughly review
> everything posted to the public fora.  But intending to amend a
> contract which binds the player usually counts as an implicit request;
> the exception is if the player reasonably believes at some point
(Continue reading)

Tanner Swett | 28 Sep 04:47 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census

Could I be listed as "the Warrigal"? (Sorted as "Warrigal, the". Or just list me as "Warrigal, the", if you
want.) 

--the Warrigal, Duvessa Ashling's player 
Tanner Swett | 27 Sep 17:43 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties

On Sep 20, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> I issue a Yellow Card to Warrigal for failing to publish the IADoP's
> report last week, violating Rule 2143. (Warrigal, please do your duty
> and publish it this week. I know you're aware you're IADoP; you said so
> in your last report. And a missing IADoP report makes it hard for me to
> figure out who I'm supposed to be penalizing, as well as making it hard
> to recover from a lack of officers.)

I apologize. I've been pretty busy lately; I'll get to it as soon as I can. Hopefully within the next couple of days.

—the Warrigal
Kerim Aydin | 24 Sep 18:18 2014

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results & Scam for Proposal 7693


On Wed, 24 Sep 2014, omd wrote:
> Third, I hereby deputise for the Dungeon Master to publish eir monthly
> report (a summary of the PoA):

We used to (a long time ago) vote down new gameplay officer rules if
the proposal didn't explicitly install an officer (usually the person
who came up with it).  It was a good idea.

Jonatan Kilhamn | 24 Sep 09:07 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Corrected Voting Results for Proposals 7690-92

On 24 September 2014 06:47, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Points Awarded   Proposals  Voting  Purses  Total
> aranea                           5      20     25
> omd                              5              5
> Sprocklem                        5      30     35
> Tiger                            5      43     48
> ais523                           5      23     28
> woggle                           5      23     28
>

It seems I'm very contrarian. Yay?

Luis Ressel | 14 Sep 23:44 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposals 7690-7692

On Sun, 14 Sep 2014 14:00:05 -0400
omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
> <jonatan.kilhamn <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > Or did that fail for some reason?
> 
> No, I just missed it.  Sorry.  Corrected results in a bit (spoiler:
> I'm no longer PM)
> 

Sorry, nothing personal. I just felt the offices should be either
completely compatible or completely incompatible. The previous rule text
seemed to me like an half-hearted attempt to make them incompatible.

--

-- 
Luis Ressel <aranea <at> aixah.de>
GPG fpr: F08D 2AF6 655E 25DE 52BC  E53D 08F5 7F90 3029 B5BD

Gmane