There is a CFJ pending as to whether this is shenanigans or not.
Proto: Add to the finger-pointing rule, a third option for the referee: Impose justice, declare shenanigans, OR CFJ/point to an existing CFJ. On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > I point my finger at G. for failing to attempt to deregister each > inactive player. I suppose that because this isn't officially related > to the duties of the Referee, G must judge himself. > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 3:39 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I intend, without 3 objections, to assign this CFJ to myself. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > >> > >> > >> [No coin needed, was planning to anyway. Here's a CFJ!] > >> > >> I deregister every one of the following players with 3 Agoran consent: > >> - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> - 天火狐 > >> - Telnaior > >> - omd (zombie) > >> - o (zombie) > >> - nichdel (zombie) > >> - pokes (zombie) > >> As the waiting period for Agoran consent has not passed following any > >> announcement of intent, I fully believe the above actions fail. > >> > >> > >> I free-CFJ on the following: In the first Eastman week of April 2018, > >> G. attempted to deregister every player that did not sent a message to > >> a public forum in the preceding month. > >> > >> > >> Caller's Arguments > >> > >> This is to see if my failed attempts have satisfied the requirements of > >> R2139. Further arguments in this conversation: > >> > >>> >> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >>> >> > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > I object to every one of the below intents. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have > >>> >> > fulfilled > >>> >> > the > >>> >> > monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL > >>> >> > attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a > >>> >> > message to > >>> >> > a public forum in the preceding month. > >>> >> > >>> >> I've long-wondered how requirements to do something match with methods > >>> >> that > >>> >> require support/objections or "attempts" to do something. > >>> >> > >>> >> I've wondered for example what what happen if I just never followed > >>> >> through > >>> >> on a posted intent for such a SHALL and let it time out, given that > >>> >> other > >>> >> supporters could complete it I could argue "I attempted but no one > >>> >> carried > >>> >> through." > >>> >> > >>> >> Or maybe, since the requirement is literally to "attempt" to do it, if > >>> >> I > >>> >> purposefully misspecify a parameter so the intent turns out to be > >>> >> invalid, > >>> >> I've still"attempted" it so satisfied the requirement. > >>> >> > >>> >> Or maybe, since a dependent action doesn't "happen" until the intent is > >>> >> resolved, maybe "attempt" means that I'm required to say "I hereby do X > >>> >> with > >>> >> 3 Support" even if I DON'T have enough support, or never announced > >>> >> intent. > >>> >> That's a literal "attempt to do X with 3 support" that then happens to > >>> >> succeed or fail depending on whether intent was announced and got > >>> >> support. > >>> >> > >>> >> I don't know the answer to any of these. But I'm willing to bet that > >>> >> IF > >>> >> I correctly announce intent, and IF I fully intend to carry out the > >>> >> intent > >>> >> if it gets the right support (though this can't be proven), then a CFJ > >>> >> would hold that I made "a good faith attempt" to do my official duty > >>> >> even > >>> >> if I objected to it personally. Maybe the judge would even set a new > >>> >> precedent distinguishing "clearly private actions" from official duties > >>> >> in adjudicating how much I can impede a process and have it still > >>> >> count as > >>> >> "an attempt". > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
