Chester Mealer | 30 Jul 22:27 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7688 and 7689

ID: 7689 Against
ID: 7688 Present

Chester Mealer


On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 9:36 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Henri Bouchard <henrib736 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> ID: 7688
>      Salary is a non-singleton Switch tracked by the IADoP.
Doesn't satisfy R2162 a) or b).
>      During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
What is a candidate?
>      At the beginning of each month, the Scorekeeper is
>      impelled to award each officeholder a number of points equal to
>      the sum of the salaries of eir offices for which the officeholder
>      held the office for at least two weeks continuously in the
>      previous month.
What is "impelled"?  And should be Scorekeepor.

Against.

> ID: 7689

Against.

Jonatan Kilhamn | 30 Jul 06:45 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: long way around, with added legalese

On 29 July 2014 22:46, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, woggle wrote:
>> On 07/29/2014 01:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > I intend, Without Objection, to ratify the following document.
>> > The document contains an error, as I have not met any winning
>> > conditions.  The reason for ratifying is clearly and plainly
>> > because I want to have won.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >   G. won the game on 28-Jul-14, triggering the effects of
>> >   a win as per R2419.
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I object.
>
> I hereby ratify the above-indicated document.
>
>
> I CFJ on the following statement:
>    G. successfully ratified the document indicated in evidence
>    on 29-Jul-14.
>

I want to state that I am interested in the outcome of the case, but
not interested in judging it.

-Tiger

Henri Bouchard | 30 Jul 05:14 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7688 and 7689

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:36 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Henri Bouchard <henrib736 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>> ID: 7688
>>      Salary is a non-singleton Switch tracked by the IADoP.
> Doesn't satisfy R2162 a) or b).
>>      During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
> What is a candidate?

Candidate - a person who applies for a job or is nominated for election.

omd | 29 Jul 23:38 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: long way around, with added legalese

On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <kerim <at> u.washington.edu> wrote:
> The intent to ratify the statement in question is enabled by
> R2202:
>        Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
>        specifying its scope.
>
> ...
> R2152 reads in part:
>        5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
>
> I clearly attempted to ratify without objection.

Gratuitous: You attempted (to ratify without objection) by
announcement, but you did not attempt (to ratify) without objection.
(I'm assuming "without objection" is to be considered a method or
mechanism similar to "by announcement", since that was the intent.)
R2152 does say that attempts are successful, but doesn't specify what
constitutes an attempt.  Could you also ratify by informing Henri
privately, or informing a hat?  Perhaps, as in the other CFJ about CAN
without a mechanism (which hasn't been judged, right?), we have to
infer a definition of "attempt" in terms of historical protocols for
performing actions (i.e. generally by telling a forum about it), but I
think it's reasonable to follow the intent of the rules and use
"without objection" as the missing specification, rather than a part
of the action.

Kerim Aydin | 26 Jul 00:00 2014

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3425 assigned to G.


On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote: 
> CFJ 3425
>     is hereby assigned to G.
> 
> CALLER
>     Murphy
> 
> STATEMENT
>     If the rules state that a person CAN perform an action, but do not 
>     explicitly state how, then e CAN perform it by announcement.
> 
> CALLER'S ARGUMENTS
> This has come up before, but I don't know offhand how drastically the
> relevant rules have changed since the last time.

Proto-judgement:
[This is without regard to past precedent]

Rule 2152/7 (Mother, May I?) reads in part:
       5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.

Therefore, any "attempt" to perform a CAN, where the CAN is not qualified
by a method, will succeed if we can say that a legal "attempt" took place.

For an attempt to change a regulated quantity, the attempt must communicate
with the recordkeepor, and we generally require clear communication.  A 
message to a discussion forum would not qualify, as following a discussion
forum is not required.  However, sending a public message would clearly
legally communicate the attempt to all players, and so would be a legal
"attempt" to perform the action.

Note that this is not directly and officially "by announcement" exactly,
as the last paragraph of R478 reserves that for cases where "CAN by 
announcement" is actually stated.  Instead, the "attempt" is performed by 
announcement, which then causes the action to succeed.  So, strictly and 
technically speaking, the "attempt" is by announcement, and the attempt 
causes the action to succeed, but that's not *quite* the same as the 
action being performed by announcement.

FALSE on a technicality; the action succeeds, but via the announcement of
attempt and R2152, not "CAN by announcement" as per R478.  This technicality 
is important, as it ensures that "CAN by method X" isn't severable into 
"CAN (by announcement attempt) by method X".

Kerim Aydin | 25 Jul 23:25 2014

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3425 assigned to G.


On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> CFJ 3425
>     is hereby assigned to G.
> 
> CALLER
>     Murphy
> 
> STATEMENT
>     If the rules state that a person CAN perform an action, but do not 
>     explicitly state how, then e CAN perform it by announcement.
> 
> CALLER'S ARGUMENTS
> This has come up before, but I don't know offhand how drastically the
> relevant rules have changed since the last time.

If anyone has a clue of what CFJ numbers this previously came
up under, this judge would be grateful for the information!  -G.

omd | 25 Jul 19:11 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Office Salary

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Henri Bouchard <henrib736 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>      During the nomination period of an election, each candidate CAN
>      set their proposed salary, a possible value of the office's
>      salary switch, by announcement. If they fail to do so before the
>      end of the nomination period, their proposed salary is set to
>      the current salary of the office. The proposed salaries for each
>      candidate are essential parameters for the Agoran decision to
>      decide the officeholder. The proposed salary of the winning
>      candidate becomes the salary of the office upon the resolution
>      of the relevant decision.
>
>      A player CAN flip the salary of an office without two
>      objections. The holder of an office CAN decrease its salary by
>      announcement. At the beginning of each month, the Scorekeeper is
>      impelled to award each officeholder a number of points equal to
>      the sum of the salaries of eir offices for which the officeholder
>      held the office for at least two weeks continuously in the
>      previous month.

No co-author=Walker?

Henri Bouchard | 25 Jul 04:37 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Scorekeepor] Score Calculation?

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:28 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I deputise for the Scorekeepor to publish the following report.
> [...]
> FROM OFFICES
>
> Arbitor - G.
> Ass - omd
> Herald - G. (18 Jun); scshunt
> IADoP - Henri (12 Jul); omd
> GNP - Henri (13 Jul)

Ahem, I am the *Minister* of GNP.

omd | 25 Jul 04:34 2014
Picon

DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Scorekeepor] Score Calculation?

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:28 PM, omd <c.ome.xk <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> TOTAL OF SOURCES (current holdings)
> omd 345
> scshunt 287
> Henri 186
> G. 172
> Tiger 55
> Sprocklem 44
> Roujo 44
> woggle 11
> ais523 8
> Murphy 5

Thus I believe I'm in the lead, not G.  The question is what the Goal
is.  My CFJ about whether  the rule "Moving Goalposts" exists has not
yet been assigned.  If it exists, the Goal is defined as 1024
(currently, since there hasn't been a beginning of a month since the
proposal was enacted); otherwise, it is undefined, and is probably
nonsense, although I think there's a valid argument for declaring it
to be 250, the old value.

Ørjan Johansen | 25 Jul 01:11 2014
Picon
Picon

DIS: Re: BUS: a bold assertion

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:

> Oh, if all this failed because I didn't assign a CFJ #, I do it again
> while assigning it CFJ#3423 at the appropriate juncture.  -G.

AFAICT CFJ numbers have no official status whatsoever.

Greetings,
Ørjan.
Kerim Aydin | 25 Jul 01:01 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: a bold assertion


On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I shamelessly assign this CFJ to myself, as I am the most interested
> in it.  I judge it TRUE.  I intend to enter this judgement into Moot
> with 2 support.  -G.

(I promise not to otherwise abuse my office.  There's just this big
red button in the ruleset called 'moot' and no one's pressed it yet.
Regular Arbitor service will resume on the weekend).  -G.


Gmane