DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On 20 July 2013 16:28, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Charles Walker > wrote: >> FOOL (28) >> Machiavelli > > CoE: Machiavelli was inactive at the time of eir ballot, making it > invalid (Rule 683). Admitted. This would give Fool 24 votes and result in omd being Speaker. However on checking the Rules I also noticed: "In a timely fashion after a General Election is Called, the Returning Officer CAN and SHALL initiate the Agoran decision to elect the Speaker." Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the decision was never actually initiated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the > decision was never actually initiated. I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is performed, as the obligation persists as well. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On 20 July 2013 16:59, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Charles Walker > wrote: >> Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the >> decision was never actually initiated. > > I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is > performed, as the obligation persists as well. omd recently argued that an obligation does not persist after the deadline (with regard to awarding yaks). I don't think there was a CFJ about it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Charles Walker wrote: >> I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is >> performed, as the obligation persists as well. > > omd recently argued that an obligation does not persist after the > deadline (with regard to awarding yaks). I don't think there was a CFJ > about it. I believe e's referring to http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=2120
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Charles Walker > wrote: > > Since I missed the time limit for initiation by a few hours, the > > decision was never actually initiated. > > I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is > performed, as the obligation persists as well. A messy case was: 1. An officer missed a time limit. Before doing the job (but after the time limit), e resigned the office. 2. The new officer didn't know if e COULD or MUST do the job, as e came on board after the timing trigger. 3. Precedent found that the old officer could be punished as the crime was missing the timing trigger. 4. The new officer still was under the CAN, and was also under the SHALL, but the SHALL had no time limit (this last part mattered as it allowed deputization). In other words, "SHALL by (time limit)" meant that after the time limit passed, the SHALL (and associated CAN) was still in effect, but with no time limit. As opposed to the whole "SHALL by time limit" going away. I just remember the result, and that's how we've been playing in general (e.g. if I awarded a Herald award after a time limit, no one said it failed). I don't remember logic or rules needed to back it up, so I don't know if that interpretation is still good (anyone remember the case?). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Charles Walker > wrote: > >> I believe the precedent is that the CAN lasts until the action is > >> performed, as the obligation persists as well. > > > > omd recently argued that an obligation does not persist after the > > deadline (with regard to awarding yaks). I don't think there was a CFJ > > about it. > > I believe e's referring to http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=2120 Heh, the explanation I just gave is longer than the case itself...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I just remember the result, and that's how we've been playing in > general (e.g. if I awarded a Herald award after a time limit, > no one said it failed). I don't remember logic or rules needed to > back it up, so I don't know if that interpretation is still good > (anyone remember the case?). > > -G. Yes, and the deputization argument still holds true. Otherwise, many actions would be un-deputizable. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Sensei] What's going on in Okinawa? Now with labelled axes!
On Jul 20, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > > --LATITUDE -- > > |-4|-3|-2|-1| 0| 1| 2| 3| 4 > | - > | 4| | | |G.| |G.| |G.| >- > 3| | | |G.|G.|G.|G.|G.|G. >- > L 2| | | | | | | |G.| > O - > N 1| | | | | | | |G.|G. > G - > I 0| | | |wo| |wo| | | > T - > U -1| | | | |wo|sc|sc|sc|sc > D - > E -2| | | | | |sc| |sc| >- >-3| |Wa|Wa|Wa| |sc|sc|sc|sc > | - > | -4| | | | | |sc| |sc| So, latitude corresponds to left–right position and longitude corresponds to up–down position? I don't think that's necessarily the most logical way to arrange things. —Machiavelli
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Sensei] What's going on in Okinawa? Now with labelled axes!
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Charles Walker wrote: > you're right. Sensei. resign I quite Yes I can reconstruct the board and publish all the moves to date for confirmation (did so already privately), but I can't assume Sensei for a couple weeks because I'm traveling at the moment.
DIS: Re: BUS: meh
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, comex wrote: > Proposal: No scam TIME OUTs (AI=2) > > Amend Rule 1504 by replacing "When a sentence of TIME OUT goes into > effect" with "When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect > continuously for four days". > > [12:28 < eelpout> So I was going to: TIME OUT you, resolve election, > assume Gov Waste and Herald, then Motion to Reconsider and re-judge] Oh yeah, and I forgot to say "and then propose this (exact same) fix for TIME OUT" :P
DIS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:58 PM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Charles Walker > wrote: >> I hereby resolve the Agoran decision to elect the Speaker. > > This is also probably insufficiently clear, as it sounds like a > standard election rather than a General one. I intend to deputise for > the Returning Officer to resolve the General Election. Oh, and my voting limit is 5.
DIS: Re: BUS: meh
On 20/07/2013 12:56 PM, omd wrote: When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect continuously for one week, the ninny becomes inactive, and eir stasis timer increases by the specified amount. I think we could also be clearer about when a sentence is in effect. At the moment we just have one clause that it takes effect when passed. There's no other clause. Presumably we want appealing or reconsidering make it cease to be in effect. (e.g. is scshunt active?) -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On 19/07/2013 10:47 PM, James Beirne wrote: >If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an "agreement"? If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an agreement, just not one that all bound players agreed to. So 101 iii blocks a conspiracy to "mousetrap", but not a solo scam? I said: E.g. A sentence of COMMUNITY SERVICE binds a player to something (an arbitrary set of prescribed tasks) they did not agree to, nor had a chance to review. This is not an agreement. What if it was assigned by an appeals panel? Then at least two people agreed to it. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: meh
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: > On 20/07/2013 12:56 PM, omd wrote: > >When a sentence of TIME OUT has been in effect continuously for > >one week, the ninny becomes inactive, and eir stasis timer > >increases by the specified amount. > > I think we could also be clearer about when a sentence is in effect. At the > moment we just have one clause that it takes effect when passed. There's no > other clause. Presumably we want appealing or reconsidering make it cease to > be in effect. (e.g. is scshunt active?) That clause is well-buried in Rule 911: > When an appeal case is initiated, the prior case is suspended, > and remains so until the appeal case is judged. (I couldn't find it either, omd pointed it out to me).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: > On 19/07/2013 10:47 PM, James Beirne wrote: > > >If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a > > constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an > > "agreement"? > > > > If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an > > agreement, just not one that all bound players agreed to. > > > > So 101 iii blocks a conspiracy to "mousetrap", but not a solo scam? In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents to join and make this an agreement". There's a threshold thing. As soon as the text becomes an agreement, R101iii is protective. While it's just a text, it's not an agreement. But in "the instant of" the text becoming an agreement, does it apply? Common sense says yes. I think we have a few of these fencepost type of questions come up, they're not always obvious, in this case, the strong wording would lead us to "interpret" this in the most protective way possible IMO.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On 20/07/2013 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents to join and make this an agreement". I don't get it. Without R101 iii, the above would do what? My sense is that this goes back to a time where there was some rule that said players could make binding agreements, and they would be enforced by Agoran courts somehow. This is not the case anymore, is it? -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Sat, 20 Jul 2013, Fool wrote:
> On 20/07/2013 1:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > In theory, you can still, also, publish a body of text and say " I agree
> > to this text, the first person to vote FOR proposal 5000 thereby consents
> > to join and make this an agreement".
>
> I don't get it. Without R101 iii, the above would do what?
>
> My sense is that this goes back to a time where there was some rule that said
> players could make binding agreements, and they would be enforced by Agoran
> courts somehow. This is not the case anymore, is it?
Yup, that's the final point to make. Prior to the Rights being written,
there was a standing mousetrap protection against being forced to join any
"Subordinate Legal Code" that Agora might govern, which could be any document
(Contests, Parties, subnomics, whatever) that the Rules defined, whether or
not anyone "agreed" to them.
When Rights were implemented, the below Rule was also implemented,
as part of a grand experiment in equity, and also to see if Agora could
be used (in theory) as an arbitration method for "outside" (private)
agreements between consenting players. R101iii functioned as long
as the concept had *some* kind of definition, even if not as complex
as the below. Now, since agreements can't be enforced, by Agora at all,
it's pretty much a stub, though it still might be a backup protection
for things like parties.
ok really have to go now... cheers! -G.
Rule 1742/4 (Power=1)
Agreements between Players
Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention
that such agreements will be binding; i.e. that they become
parties to the agreement and agree to be bound by the agreement.
A CFJ that alleges that a specific person (the Defendant) has
broken an agreement is a Civil CFJ, for which the Caller is the
Plaintiff. A CFJ that is not a Civil CFJ is a General CFJ.
If the judge of a Civil CFJ finds that the agreement was entered
into with the intention that the agreement be binding, and that
the agreement has in fact been broken, then e may do any or all
of the following:
(i) order the defendant to perform according to the agreement
or perform substitute acts that would fairly serve the
interests of the agreement;
(ii) order the other parties of the agreement to perform such
acts as may be necessary to preserve fairness and
justice;
(iii) order that additional ("punitive") penalties or actions
be applied to the defendant, if and only if the agreement
in question explicitly specifies punitive penalties for
the type of breach.
If a Civil CFJ is called by anyone who is not party to that
agreement, then it lacks standing and shall be dismissed. A
Civil CFJ that specifies multiple defendants, or multiple
independent breaches of contract, is improperly made and shall
be dismissed.
Nothing in this rule shall be construed so as to impair the
enforcement of an agreement which requires a Player to violate
another agreement.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, omd wrote: > Amend Rule 2389 (Ordinary Chamber) to read: > > Voting Tokens are a class of assets tracked by the Assessor. > Each Voting Token has an ID number and an Expiration Date, upon > which it is automatically destroyed. How about a timer to expiration? And I'm a fan of platonic destruction here. Otherwise I generally like, except that a) Starting Bid should be a budget switch. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > How about a timer to expiration? Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an expiration timer to pause. > And I'm a fan of platonic destruction > here. You mean pragmatic? I could change it to pragmatic, but because the Assessor is both the recordkeepor of Voting Tokens and the vote collector for proposals, I considered it unnecessary as e can check for expired tokens before resolving, and needs to do so weekly anyway. > a) Starting Bid should be a budget switch. Okay. It was intended to just be a bare minimum, not something the actual price would end up near, but I guess there is a risk of nobody caring enough to bid.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:48 PM, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Sean Hunt > wrote: >> How about a timer to expiration? > > Could use a timer, but not much point, since there is no reason for an > expiration timer to pause. More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're bidding on beforehand? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > More flexibility this way. What if we want to make the tokens created > before the auction with paused timers, so that you know what you're > bidding on beforehand? You do know what you're bidding on with this proposal. But I guess it would save a tiny amount of verbiage :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions": Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? When in effect, unless a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the fine in a timely fashion; if e fails to do so within four days, and has at least that amount, then any player CAN destroy that amount from eir possession by announcement to satisfy the fine. Do we want people to be able to destroy less than that amount? See CFJ 3357. -Dan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote: >> Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions": > Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? It was repealed. >> When in effect, unless >> a fine for that case has already been satisfied, the ninny >> SHALL pay a cost of that amount of currency to satisfy the >> fine in a timely fashion; if e fails to do so within four >> days, and has at least that amount, then any player CAN >> destroy that amount from eir possession by announcement to >> satisfy the fine. > > > Do we want people to be able to destroy less than that amount? See CFJ 3357. I wouldn't bother having that, it would just make things more confusing. In that case it was the judge's fault for fining a non-liquid currency the defendant didn't have, but if it were Yaks, it would be reasonable to expect em to bargain with another players for some...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 20/07/2013 3:30 PM, omd wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Fool wrote: Create a Power-2 Rule titled "Auctions": Don't we already have an auction rule? Can we fix it or get rid of it? It was repealed. Just looked, R2393 is in the SLR posted 12 hours ago. Do we want people to be able to destroy less than that amount? See CFJ 3357. In that case it was the judge's fault for fining a non-liquid currency the defendant didn't have, Agreed, and he still owes us 20 Berks, same as in town. but if it were Yaks, it would be reasonable to expect em to bargain with another players for some... Oh, I see. Maybe that should be made explicit? -Dan
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:47 PM, omd wrote: >m.sl...@gmail.com Don't use me in support of your argument. Just because I'm not using a proper email client doesn't mean I have to like it. -- Michael Slone
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] And what you've all been waiting for...
On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 09:21 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I just remember the result, and that's how we've been playing in > general (e.g. if I awarded a Herald award after a time limit, > no one said it failed). I don't remember logic or rules needed to > back it up, so I don't know if that interpretation is still good > (anyone remember the case?). It's probably not the same case, but CFJs 2785, 2787, 2788, 2789 is my favourite Agoran-legal snarlup (at least, out of the ones I'm responsible for), leading to a CFJ (2785) which had two failed attempts to judge it, and which eventually nobody was obligated to judge (although Murphy elected to do so anyway). It lead to one of the more interesting precedents on how obligations follow offices (although it's about what happens if the obligation changes from one office to another, rather than if the obligation stays with the officer but the officer changes). -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposals
On 20 Jul 2013 19:10, "omd" wrote: > Proposal: Infraction cases (AI=2, PF=25) FOR, but we should review the Classes of current crimes and upgrade a few SHALLs/SHALL NOTs to Crimes. If no one does so next week I'll look into it. Also, do we really need Classes of Crime? Could just have Infractions and Crimes, with no ranking.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3358 assigned to OscarMeyr
This doesn't seem like it addresses the issue of Ambassador Abuse, although it wasn't mentioned in the CfJ itself. As far as I can tell, if Ambassador Abuse works, it would be required to be at the same time, and is there any reason that same time != same message? On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Rouillard < > jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3358 >> >> == CFJ 3358 == >> >> It is LEGAL for the Clerk of the Courts to award Yaks to Walker >> without additional awards or transfers in the same message. >> >> >> > > Why wouldn't it be? I am aware of no reason that Yak awards or transfers > must be batched into one message. It is a good idea, I admit, as it > reduces the waste of sending out separate emails for each award or transfer. > > So, trivially TRUE. > -- > OscarMeyr
