I am happy to reconsider of you lemme know where I over stepped.
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 21:17 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
> interest among the players for reconsideration.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
>> this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
>> player. Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
>> or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
>> *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
>> entirely different matter. If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
>> opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
>> precedent.
>>
>> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>>
>> > First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged
>> TRUE/FALSE with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will
>> re-establish that
>> > tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment. If
>> there is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as
>> DISMISS,
>> > but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.
>> >
>> > Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?". I
>> find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such. Even giving the
>> > interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two
>> realities exist:
>> > Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the
>> barring attempt failed.
>> > Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established
>> ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my
>> statement
>> > that e is the judge of the CFJ.
>> >
>> > In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus
>> the CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).
>> >
>> > To be honest, I could end the judgment here. CuddleBeam should've
>> CFJed on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ". That
>> would've
>> > required someone to judge if the barring worked. I note to CuddleBeam:
>> Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super
>> CFJs
>> > are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the
>> question you seemed to intend to raise. But, I've got an opinion on the
>> matter, and
>> > I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say.
>> >
>> > So... let's get into the question at hand:
>> >
>> > Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?
>> >
>> > It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave
>> no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had
>> to).
>> > {{{
>> > (My own current understanding
>> > is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>> > action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>> > presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>> > understanding.)
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The thing is, I don't see it that way.
>> >
>> > Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
>> > {{{
>> > (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
>> > value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
>> > regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
>> > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
>> > available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
>> > indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
>> > be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an
>> conditional activity to happen?
>> >
>> > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially
>> established/enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information
>> gathering is left up to the
>> > reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold
>> that logic for most cases.
>> >
>> > I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at
>> an arbitrary date in the future.
>> > (e.g. "I give <PLAYER> 1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a
>> public forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny. That
>> requires an
>> > officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an
>> action for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.)
>> >
>> > I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional
>> action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time.
>> > (e.g. "I give <PLAYER> 1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out
>> a message with unicode characters in it". Non-rule defined deadlines are
>> > similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on
>> someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future
>> activity.)
>> > (e.g. "When the promotor distributes proposal titled `Beef, it's what's
>> for dinner!` I vote FOR" is invalid for similar reasons. It isn't
>> reasonable for
>> > the Assesor to start tracking votes until the voting period begins.
>> Once again, a non-rule obligation.)
>> >
>> > But in this case, the barring in question, I just don't see any of that
>> unreasonableness.
>> >
>> > Let's look at the rule shall we?
>> >
>> > {{{
>> > Rule 991/17 (Power=2)
>> > Calls for Judgement
>> >
>> > Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
>> > (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a
>> > statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person
>> > from the case.
>> >
>> > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>> > assigned exactly one judgement.
>> >
>> > The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
>> > justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
>> > of Agora.
>> >
>> > When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
>> > player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
>> > week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
>> > players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).
>> > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
>> > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
>> > If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
>> > judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
>> > }}}
>> >
>> > In my reading of the rule, the barring isn't resolved until a judge is
>> assigned, thus it's not unreasonable to ask the Arbitor to resolve a
>> conditional
>> > at that time.
>> >
>> > The conditional itself must be reasonable though. Is it reasonable to
>> ask the Arbitor to know who e will assign to a case? Yes, that sounds
>> reasonable
>> > to me, as it's eir job to assign judges to cases.
>> >
>> > Additionally my interpretation of the barring is 'I bar the first
>> eligible Player that is attempted to be assigned to this case', as any
>> eligible judge
>> > would be successfully assigned. It seems reasonable to take this
>> reasonable interpretation of the barring.
>> >
>> > The Arbitor isn't prescribed an exact method to eir madness, they can
>> assign judges however they like, BUT it does state:
>> > {{{
>> > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
>> > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
>> > }}}
>> > and thus there must be some amount of method to the madness, and thus
>> it seems even more reasonable to have the Arbitor bar the first judge e was
>> > intending to assign to the case.
>> >
>> > I am uncertain what would've happened if the CFJ had remained
>> unassigned and someone had tried to assign Without 3 Objections - but
>> thankfully I don't
>> > have to have an opinion on that. As a result I wont go deeply into it,
>> but perhaps the first attempt at that would fail - and so it would take two
>> > attempts to assign a judge? I'm unsure, and wont discuss the matter
>> further.
>> >
>> > To Summarize: Though I have judged this CFJ, I believe that I was
>> ineligible to be assigned to the CFJ by the reasonableness of the barring
>> attempt. A
>> > reasonableness that comes from the fact that the barring itself isn't
>> resolved until judge assignment, and all the information was at hand at
>> that time,
>> > and thus no unreasonable obligations were placed on the Arbitor.
>> >
>> > If the barring attempt was sufficiently unreasonable ("I bar whoever
>> walked the most steps on the day this CFJ is assigned a judge") then I
>> would also
>> > state it couldn't be a proper barring attempt, but CuddleBeams barring
>> seems reasonable enough to me.
>> >
>> > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote:
>> > > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for
>> the following statement:
>> > >
>> > > "Can this statement have a Judge?"
>> > >
>> > > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the
>> person
>> > > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for
>> Judgement
>> > > submitted by this message.
>> >
>> > This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding
>> > is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
>> > action based on information that will only be available in the future;
>> > presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
>> > understanding.)
>> >
>> > See also this message:
>> > <
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg35262.html
>> >
>> >
>> > > ----
>> > >
>> > > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable
>> of
>> > > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content
>> above as
>> > > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced
>> this
>> > > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone.
>> > >
>> > > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might
>> turn
>> > > out.)
>> >
>> > --
>> > ais523
>> > Arbitor
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
