Thank you for this. I will revise accordingly.
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 10:16 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Just to add, because it hasn't come up since you joined, I think.
>
> When a judgement fails on "a technicality" that doesn't have to do
> with the arguments the Caller wanted addressed (like simultaneous
> versus non-simultaneous when the Caller's deeper question was on
> naming), we frequently accept that the judge can still solve the
> deeper issue, rather than wasting time forcing the Caller to re-call
> technically-correct CFJ.
>
> A typical thing to say is something like "the exact phrasing of the
> CFJ requires FALSE on a technicality. However, the deeper issue is
> better served by a re-phrased question which [because long arguments]
> is TRUE".
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > This addresses whether this is a valid Notice of Honour, which I agree
> > with. However, it doesn't address the question, which is ""This Notice
> > of Honour causes a player's karma to change by exactly one and then
> > change back."
> >
> > If it causes karma to "change by one and change back" then it must
> > either increase then decrease, or decrease then increase. Which one?
> >
> > Recent CFJ found such a change to be simultaneous, not "change by one
> > then change back". You re-phrased the question at the end of your
> > judgement to whether the notice causes you to "both gain and lose one
> > karma" which is TRUE because that phrasing is simultaneous, but the
> > phrasing of actual CFJ wasn't.
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> > > The following is a proto-judgement. Please let me know of any comments. I
> > > plan to issue the judgement later today or tomorrow absent feedback.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > I announce judgement that CFJ 3662 is TRUE.
> > >
> > > Relevant Rules:
> > >
> > > > Rule 2139/14 (The Registrar)
> > > > The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track
> > > > of players. The Registrar's weekly report includes:
> > > >
> > > > 1. A list of all players, including information sufficient to identify
> > > > and contact each player. . . .
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Rule 2510/4 (Such is Karma)
> > > > . . .
> > > > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. For a Notice of Honour to be
> > > > valid, it must:
> > > > 1. Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour, and be the first valid
> > > > Notice of Honour that player has published in the current week;
> > > > 2. Specify any other player or Agora to gain karma, and provide a
> > > > reason for specifying that player; and
> > > > 3. Specify any player or Agora to lose karma, and provide a reason
> > > > for specifying that player.
> > > > 4. Not result in Agora's karma moving farther away from 0.
> > > > . . .
> > >
> > >
> > > Judge’s Evidence:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018, 14:02 Reuben Staley <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > I submit this notice of honor:
> > > >
> > > > -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
> > > > +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
> > > >
> > > > I call a CFJ: This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change by
> > > > exactly one and then change back.
> > >
> > >
> > > Caller’s Arguments:
> > >
> > > > In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
> > > > spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with
> > > > nothing.
> > > > For example:
> > > >
> > > > J. R. R. Tolkien
> > > > J.R.R. Tolkien
> > > > J R R Tolkien
> > > > JRR Tolkien
> > > >
> > > > All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald
> > > > Reuel
> > > > Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should
> > > > be
> > > > accepted using any method of separation.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > > > person
> > > > who registered during April of this year.
> > >
> > >
> > > Judge’s Arguments:
> > >
> > > This CFJ raises two related questions.
> > >
> > > 1. Rule 2510 provides that a published Notice of Honour is EFFECTIVE
> > > inter alia only if it is “clear that [the published message is] a Notice
> > > of Honour.” Trigon evidently attempted to publish a Notice of Honour by
> > > stating, “I submit this notice of honor.” The first question is whether
> > > it is “clear” that this misspelled “notice of honor” is a “Notice of
> > > Honour.”
> > >
> > > “Honor” and “Honour” are alternate spellings of the same word. Any
> > > reasonable player would understand that Trigon’s message was publishing a
> > > Notice of Honour under Rule 2510. And it would cause great mischief, and
> > > opportunities for lame and annoying scams to the detriment of the game,
> > > if minor typographical errors or the use of alternative spellings could
> > > defeat the EFFECTIVEness of a message that is otherwise clearly and
> > > unmistakably an attempt to undertake a valid game action.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, I judge that the message is an attempt to issue a Notice of
> > > Honour, even though that was not spelled exactly as provided in the Rule.
> > >
> > > 2. Trigon’s Notice of Honour attempted to remove one karma from “D.
> > > Margaux” and add one karma to “D Margaux.” The question is whether those
> > > two names both refer to the same player (i.e., me, the judge in this
> > > case).
> > >
> > > There are no Rules that require Players to have only one single immutable
> > > “name.” Rule 2139 requires the Registrar to maintain “information
> > > sufficient to identify and contact each player,” but it does not require
> > > the Registrar to maintain a single official “name” for players.
> > >
> > > It would also cause great mischief and opportunities for annoying and
> > > lame scams if actions that clearly and unmistakably named a player were
> > > deemed ineffective because of a minor and insubstantial typo or spelling
> > > variation.
> > >
> > > Last month, I sent a registration message signed “--D. Margaux,” from an
> > > email account with an email name “D Margaux <[email protected]>.”
> > > Any reasonable player would perceive that both “D Margaux” and “D.
> > > Margaux” refer to the same entity (me). Various messages have referred to
> > > me using both variations without comment from any player or any
> > > indication of confusion or ambiguity.
> > >
> > > Accordingly, I judge that Trigon’s message named me as the player to both
> > > gain and lose one karma in eir Notice of Honour.
> > >
> > > I judge that the CFJ is TRUE.
> > >
> > > > On Sep 23, 2018, at 11:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CFJ 1361 ("Beverly") is quite relevant here.
> > > >
> > > >> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
> > > >>> On Sun, 2018-09-23 at 14:02 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > >>> Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a
> > > >>> person who registered during April of this year.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This ends my arguments for a frivolous CFJ. I probably did something
> > > >>> wrong.
> > > >>
> > > >> Our precedent is basically that player names aren't a "tracked" thing,
> > > >> rather we simply identify players by whichever means is most
> > > >> convenient. (It should in theory be possible to change how someone else
> > > >> is named on the Registrar report if everyone persistently calls them by
> > > >> a particular name.) As such, any unambiguous attempt to name someone is
> > > >> likely to work, regardless of what the spelling is.
> > > >>
> > > >> (There was a period of Agoran history where we had a player named
> > > >> "Wooble" and a player named "woggle", and occasionally people got
> > > >> confused and ended up producing a name somewhere in between. I can't
> > > >> remember for certain how that worked out, but I'd expect it to be "as
> > > >> long as it's clear who's the poster was trying to name, it works". This
> > > >> situation is much less ambiguous.)
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> ais523
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
