| Roger Hicks on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:50:33 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [s-b] [CotC] Docket |
Date of This Report: Mon, 22 Jun 2009
Date of Last Report: Mon, 15 Jun 2009
BENCH (* denotes unqualified due to inactivity / class)
Judge Posture Hawkishness Rank Last Case
-------------------------------------------------------
0x44 sitting hem & haw 1 5
ais523 supine hem & haw 3 4
BobTHJ standing hem & haw 3 1
C-Walker sitting hovering 2 (none)
Goethe sitting hem & haw 1 6
Teucer sitting hem & haw 1 (none)
Tiger standing hem & haw 1 (none)
Wooble standing hem & haw 3 (none)
(All others are Supine, Hemming & Hawing, rank 1)
RECENT JUDICIAL EVENTS
----------------------
Mon, 11 May 2009 17:39 - Office of CotC created
Tue, 12 May 2009 13:46 - Wooble Posture Supine -> Sitting
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:55 - ais523 Posture Supine -> Sitting
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:55 - ais523 Rank 1 -> 3
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:59 - Tiger Posture Supine -> Sitting
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:59 - Bench rotated by Deputy CotC Tiger (disputed)
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:59 - BobTHJ Posture Supine -> Sitting
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:59 - BobTHJ Rank 1 -> 3
Tue, 12 May 2009 19:21 - Wooble Rank 1 -> 3
Tue, 12 May 2009 19:41 - 0x44 Posture Supine -> Sitting
---Time of Past Report---
Tue, 26 May 2009 18:18 - Goethe Posture Supine -> Sitting
Thu, 26 May 2009 08:23 - C-Walker Posture Supine -> Sitting
Thu, 26 May 2009 08:23 - C-Walker Hawkishness Hemming & Hawing -> Hugging
---Time of Past Report---
Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:58 - C-Walker Rank 1 -> 2
Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:58 - C-Walker Hawkishness Hugging -> Hemming & Hawing
---Time of Past Report---
Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:55 - Teucer Posture Supine -> Sitting
Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:12 - ais523 Posture Sitting -> Supine
---Time of Last Report---
Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:42 - C-Walker Hawkishness Hemming & Hawing -> Hovering
RECENT CFJS
-----------
1 (District Inquiry) TRUE
Messages sent to spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx clearly marked as Public are
considered to be Public.
---
Tue, 12 May 2009 13:46 - Called by Wooble
Tue, 12 May 2009 13:46 - assigned to Judge Wooble by Deputy CotC
Wooble (fails - not qualified)
Tue, 12 May 2009 13:46 - judged TRUE by Wooble (fails - not assigned judge)
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:16 - assigned to Judge BobTHJ by Deputy CotC Wooble
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:24 - judged TRUE by BobTHJ
---
JUDGMENTS
(BobTHJ)
Since either true or false could be reasonably interpreted based upon
the various arguments that have arisen, the good of the game demands
that I judge TRUE.
====================
2 (District Inquiry) FALSE
Tiger's caste is Alpha.
---
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:53 - Called by Wooble
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:59 - assigned to Judge ais523 by Deputy CotC Tiger
Tue, 12 May 2009 19:03 - judged TRUE by ais523
Tue, 12 May 2009 19:21 - Appeal iniated by Wooble
Tue, 12 May 2009 19:25 - Appeal supported by 0x44
Tue, 12 May 2009 19:31 - Appealled by BobTHJ
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:16 - assigned to appeal panel {Tiger, 0x44,
BobTHJ} by deputy CotC Wooble
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:24 - BobTHJ opines OVERRULE - FALSE
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:29 - Tiger opines OVERRULE - FALSE
Thu, 14 May 2009 14:54 - 0x44 opines OVERRULE - FALSE
Thu, 14 May 2009 14:54 - Overruled to FALSE on appeal
---
ARGUMENTS
(Wooble)
The Grand Poobah never incurred an obligation to flip
castes in May because the relevant rule wasn't in the ruleset at the
start of the month. Thus, the attempt to deputise for the office is
INVALID.
---
JUDGMENTS
(ais523 - suspended)
I judge CFJ 2 TRUE, on the basis that rules cannot have a retroactive
effect (such as producing an obligation on someone with a deadline
before the time at which the rule was enacted).
---
APPELANT'S ARGUMENTS
(Wooble)
the judge's reasoning argues for FALSE, i.e., that Tiger's caste is not Alpha.
---
APPEALS JUSTICE ARGUMENTS
(BobTHJ)
I agree with ais523's reasoning, though he obviously entered a
mistaken judgment. I opine OVERRULE - FALSE.
====================
3 (District Inquiry) FALSE
A message sent to the spoon-business mailing list is a public message
even if it contains no disclaimer stating it is public.
---
Tue, 12 May 2009 18:59 - Called by BobTHJ
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:16 - Assigned to Judge ais523 by Deputy CotC Wooble
Wed, 13 May 2009 19:30 - Judged FALSE by ais523
---
JUDGMENTS
(ais523)
I judge this FALSE. s-b is not a Public Forum, and unless a message
there contains some other indicator that it's meant to be public, it
isn't a public message.
====================
4 (Supreme Inquiry) TRUE
Wooble and Tiger both possess White ribbons.
---
Thu, 14 May 2009 15:18 - Called by Wooble with II 3
Mon, 25 May 2009 19:24 - Assigned to Judge ais523
Thu, 28 May 2009 02:17 - Judged TRUE by ais523
---
ARGUMENTS
(Wooble)
these are only earned when a person becomes a player for
the first time. These are VALID if and only if Tiger and I, the
persons, were not players before the Emergency registered me and e
registered emself. The whole projection into the game as a Game
Object thing is almost certainly both relevant and confusing, so I set
the II of this CFJ to 3.
---
JUDGMENTS
(ais523)
I judge CFJ 4 TRUE. A player, by the definitions in the current ruleset,
is a person whose Citizenship switch is set to Registered. The relevant
rule for controlling definitions across time, 1586, doesn't imply that
past definitions of 'player' have any effect on the present definition.
Therefore, given that Citizenship switches didn't exist in the Sixth Era
nor earlier, nobody was a player by present definitions before then. So
the White Ribbons can be created with no trouble. (They may have been
de-facto a player via normal English definitions; but not by the
definitions in the current ruleset.)
====================
5 (District Inquiry) FALSE
The page at
http://b.nomic.net/index.php?title=User:Wooble/Proposed_Ruleset&oldid=11379
contains an accurate rendition of the text of each of the current
rules.
---
Mon, 25 May 2009 20:42 - Called by Wooble
Mon, 25 May 2009 21:52 - Assigned to judge 0x44
Tue, 26 May 2009 04:03 - Judged TRUE by 0x44
Tue, 26 May 2009 13:33 - Appeal initiated by comex
Tue, 26 May 2009 16:14 - Appeal supported by Goethe
Tue, 26 May 2009 17:47 - Appealled by BobTHJ
Tue, 26 May 2009 17:52 - Assigned to appeal panel {ais523, BobTHJ, Tiger}
Tue, 26 May 2009 17:55 - BobTHJ opines REMAND
Tue, 26 May 2009 17:55 - ais523 opines OVERRULE - FALSE
Tue, 26 May 2009 18:13 - Tiger opines REMAND
Tue, 26 May 2009 18:13 - Remanded to Judge 0x44
Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:42 - Judged FALSE by 0x44
---
ARGUMENTS
(Wooble)
The rule change was specified clearly enough to meet B's
game customs.
(comex)
Rule 105 explicitly prohibits ambiguity, and I genuinely
don't know whether to mark the new rules as enacted or amended(1) by
your proposal, especially considering the apparently redundant second
paragraph.
(0x44)
B Nomic's game custom explicitly permits simultaneous rule changes. If the
rule does not permit them, it is a regression artifact from the unilateral
assumption of Agora's ruleset.
(ais523)
Rule 217?
---
JUDGMENTS
(0x44 - suspended)
The first line of Proposal 1945 states clearly that the entire ruleset
is to be replaced with the contents of the page at the above
historical Bn wiki link. To do so would require the complete removal
of the original ruleset and the subsequent (and necessarily
simultaneous) emplacement of the new rules. Since no individual rule
was specified, the ruleset was repealed and enacted in toto.
Additionally, it seems improper to set aside a UNANIMOUS decision on a
Democratic proposal, any ambiguity that may have arisen from Proposal
1945 must be ignored in deference to the will of the Players.
(0x44)
I answer CFJ 5 NO, and defer to the appellant's arguments.
---
APPEALANT'S ARGUMENTS
(comex)
Rule 105 explicitly disallows simultaneous rule changes. If those
specified by the proprosal are necessarily simultaneous, they cannot
occur at all.
=====================
6 (District Inquiry) IRRELEVANT
In terms of B Nomic, I own Barrack Obama.
---
Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:58 - Called by C-Walker
Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:06 - Assigned to judge Goethe
Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:46 - Judged IRRELEVANT by Goethe
---
ARGUMENTS
(Tiger)
Right before the Agoran ruleset was adopted, a rule was created that
alowed players to claim things that were not game objects (or however
it was phrased). C-waker immediately went on to claim Barrack Obama
and eir fellow player's brains, among other things. So it's
essentially a question about whether gamestate carries over when it's
no longer recognised by the rules.
(Wooble)
under the old ruleset, anything in the game was
a game object. Thus, if claims were in the game, they were game
objects and destroyed by the Refresh Proposal which explicitly
destroyed all game objects except for itself. If they weren't game
objects, they weren't part of the gamestate so in the absence of rules
making them part of the gamestate in the new ruleset, they're not part
of the gamestate.
---
JUDGMENTS
(Goethe)
On one hand, it's possible to decide that B-Nomic somehow recognizes an
objective reality in which the statement is pretty obviously false (I'll
take that as a given that the person in question does not "own" the
object in question in any sense that a non-nomic player would recognize).
It's also possible to find false in that, if the legal fiction of
ownership were true in a previous round of B, it was taken away.
However, the current ruleset contains a third option, in that the courts
do not purport to judge one way or the other on relationships between
entities outside the rules which have no effect on the conduct of play
or the "game state". The current ruleset does not purport to regulate
the ownership of real-life things, nor does the ownership of the item
in question have any bearing on the rules or play at the moment.
Therefore, the correct decision is IRRELEVANT.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business