From - Sat Apr 1 10:17:18 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by mx8.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sec3gk.q3o.37kbi16 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:56:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA22501 for agora-official-list; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 14:51:01 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA22494 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 14:50:59 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id BAA19576 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:07:03 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma019574; Sun, 2 Apr 00 01:06:47 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id JAA16249 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:51:04 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200004011451.JAA16249@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1205 Judged TRUE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 9:51:04 EST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sec3gk.q3o.37kbi16 ============================== CFJ 1205 ============================== Wes committed the Class 1 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation when he distributed Proposal 3988 (Harsher Blot Penalties), on Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:20:25 -0800. ======================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: elJefe Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Anthony, Blob, Chuck, Murphy, Peekee, Sherlock, elJefe, harvel Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Wes Had eir turn: Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Steve, lee, t Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Michael On Hold: Novalis, Palnatoke Zombie: Harlequin, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Steve 24 Mar 2000 13:23:07 +1100 Assigned to elJefe: 24 Mar 2000 17:35:59 -0500 Judged TRUE by elJefe: 31 Mar 2000 09:46:17 -0500 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Motions: I Move that the Judge execute a Sentencing Order imposing on Wes a penalty of one Blot, in accordance with Rules 1770, 1503 and 1504, and requiring that Wes make an Official Apology in accordance with R908. ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Rule 1770 (Evidence 1) defines Promotor Misrepresentation as the "[d]istribution of a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch". R1770 also defines which Proposals should be in the Batch as follows: * a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with the highest positive Priority the cardinality of which is equal to the Batch Size. On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:20:25 -0800, Wes distributed Proposal 3988 (Harsher Blot Penalties) (Evidence 2). At that time, the Batch Size was 2. However, at that time, "Harsher Blot Penalties" was not one of the two Interested Proposals with the highest Priority, as Wes himself acknowledged a short time later when he withdrew P3988 and distributed in its place P3990 (Agora Abhors a Vacuum) (Evidence 3). Therefore, the distribution of Proposal 3988 was the distribution of a Proposal not in the Curent Batch, and thus constituted Promotor Misrepresentation. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: -----1. Rule 1770/10 Rule 1770/10 (Power=1) Distributing Proposals The Current Batch for a given Week is a subset of the Proposal Queue. Its contents shall be calculated at the beginning of that Week. It shall contain every Disinterested Proposal then in the Proposal Queue, as well as: * all Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with Priority greater than zero, if their number is not greater than the Batch Size; or * a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with the highest positive Priority the cardinality of which is equal to the Batch Size. Ties for highest Priority shall be broken in favor of those Proposals which have been in the Queue the longest. During a Week, the Promotor must distribute all and only Proposals in that Week's Current Batch. Failure to Distribute all Proposals in that Current Batch during that Week is the Class 0.5 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Infraction. Distribution of a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch is the Class 1 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Crime. A Player may make a Claim of Error stating that a distributed Proposal was not in the Current Batch at the time it was distributed. If this is admitted, then: * the Voting Period for that Proposal shall immediately end; * all Votes cast on that Proposal shall be cancelled; and * the Promotor shall add the Proposal to the Proposal Queue. Once a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Queue. The Promotor shall distribute each proposal in the batch to the Public Forum, accompanied by its number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of whether the Proposal is Ordinary or Democratic. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. A Proposal is only considered to be legally distributed if it is explicitly marked as such. The Promotor is permitted to publish the text of undistributed Proposals without necessarily distributing them. Immediately after all Proposals in the Current Batch have been distributed the Promotor shall reduce the Priority of all Proposals remaining in the Queue to half of their previous values, rounding fractions down. -----2. Promotor Wes' distribution of P3988 (excerpts) >From magik-@aracnet.com Thu Mar 16 18:23:10 2000 Subject: OFF: Proposals 3987-3989 Distributed To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:20:25 -0800 (PST) This Week's Current Batch, as set at the beginning of this Nomic Week, consists of the following Proposals, which are hereby distributed: No. Proposer Priority AI Name 3987 Peekee 8 1 Probate Fix 2.1 (#381) 3988 Elysion 5 2 Harsher Blot Penalties (#378) 3989 t 0 1 Quick Minting When It Is Needed (#376) Proposal 3989 is Disinterested. -----3. Promotor Wes' distribution of P3990 >From magik-@aracnet.com Thu Mar 16 18:37:08 2000 Subject: OFF: Proposal 3990 Distributed To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:34:11 -0800 (PST) This Week's Current Batch, as set at the beginning of this Nomic Week, also consists of the following Proposal, which is hereby distributed: No. Proposer Priority AI Name 3990 Murphy 10 2 Agora Abhors a Vacuum (#386) Proposal 3988 "Harsher Blot Penalties" by Elysion was Distributed accidentally, due to our error, and thus the Voting Period for it immediately ends, all Votes are canceled, and it is added back into the Queue, retaining it's interal number of #378. We apologize for any inconvenience. ======================================================================== Judge elJefe's Arguments: As Wes has already admitted his guilt, I have little choice but to return a judgment of TRUE, which I hereby do. It seems that this was a technical violation which was instantly corrected by Wes. I don't quite see the point of making a CFJ. If I could issue a judicial order against this kind of thing, I would. ======================================================================== Judge elJefe's Evidence: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone - http://vir.fclib.org/~harvel/ My, my, but it looks as if Blob language is very difficult to pronounce! -- Crito, in agora-discussion From - Sat Apr 1 11:08:58 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by mx6.mindspring.com (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sec582.22j.37kbi14 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:25:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA22982 for agora-official-list; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 15:14:32 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA22979 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 15:14:30 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id BAA19646 for ; Sun, 2 Apr 2000 01:30:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma019644; Sun, 2 Apr 00 01:30:10 +1000 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id KAA17047 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Sat, 1 Apr 2000 10:14:27 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200004011514.KAA17047@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: Motion 1205.1 Granted by harvel To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 10:14:27 EST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sec582.22j.37kbi14 ============================== CFJ 1205 ============================== Wes committed the Class 1 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation when he distributed Proposal 3988 (Harsher Blot Penalties), on Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:20:25 -0800. ======================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: harvel Judgement: Grant Judge selection: Eligible: Anthony, Blob, Chuck, Murphy, Peekee, Sherlock, harvel Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Wes Had eir turn: Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Steve, lee, t Already served: elJefe Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Michael On Hold: Novalis, Palnatoke Zombie: Harlequin, Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by Steve 24 Mar 2000 13:23:07 +1100 Assigned to elJefe: 24 Mar 2000 17:35:59 -0500 Judged TRUE by elJefe: 31 Mar 2000 09:46:17 -0500 Judgement published: 01 Apr 2000 09:51:04 -0500 Reassigned to harvel: 01 Apr 2000 10:03:30 -0500 Motion 1205.1 Granted by 01 Apr 2000 10:03:30 -0500 harvel: Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Motions (Granted by harvel): I Move that the Judge execute a Sentencing Order imposing on Wes a penalty of one Blot, in accordance with Rules 1770, 1503 and 1504, and requiring that Wes make an Official Apology in accordance with R908. ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Rule 1770 (Evidence 1) defines Promotor Misrepresentation as the "[d]istribution of a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch". R1770 also defines which Proposals should be in the Batch as follows: * a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with the highest positive Priority the cardinality of which is equal to the Batch Size. On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:20:25 -0800, Wes distributed Proposal 3988 (Harsher Blot Penalties) (Evidence 2). At that time, the Batch Size was 2. However, at that time, "Harsher Blot Penalties" was not one of the two Interested Proposals with the highest Priority, as Wes himself acknowledged a short time later when he withdrew P3988 and distributed in its place P3990 (Agora Abhors a Vacuum) (Evidence 3). Therefore, the distribution of Proposal 3988 was the distribution of a Proposal not in the Curent Batch, and thus constituted Promotor Misrepresentation. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: -----1. Rule 1770/10 Rule 1770/10 (Power=1) Distributing Proposals The Current Batch for a given Week is a subset of the Proposal Queue. Its contents shall be calculated at the beginning of that Week. It shall contain every Disinterested Proposal then in the Proposal Queue, as well as: * all Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with Priority greater than zero, if their number is not greater than the Batch Size; or * a set of Interested Proposals in the Proposal Queue with the highest positive Priority the cardinality of which is equal to the Batch Size. Ties for highest Priority shall be broken in favor of those Proposals which have been in the Queue the longest. During a Week, the Promotor must distribute all and only Proposals in that Week's Current Batch. Failure to Distribute all Proposals in that Current Batch during that Week is the Class 0.5 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Infraction. Distribution of a Proposal (or text purporting to be a Proposal) not in the Current Batch is the Class 1 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation. All Players are authorized to detect and report this Crime. A Player may make a Claim of Error stating that a distributed Proposal was not in the Current Batch at the time it was distributed. If this is admitted, then: * the Voting Period for that Proposal shall immediately end; * all Votes cast on that Proposal shall be cancelled; and * the Promotor shall add the Proposal to the Proposal Queue. Once a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Queue. The Promotor shall distribute each proposal in the batch to the Public Forum, accompanied by its number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and an indication of whether the Proposal is Ordinary or Democratic. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. A Proposal is only considered to be legally distributed if it is explicitly marked as such. The Promotor is permitted to publish the text of undistributed Proposals without necessarily distributing them. Immediately after all Proposals in the Current Batch have been distributed the Promotor shall reduce the Priority of all Proposals remaining in the Queue to half of their previous values, rounding fractions down. -----2. Promotor Wes' distribution of P3988 (excerpts) >From magik-@aracnet.com Thu Mar 16 18:23:10 2000 Subject: OFF: Proposals 3987-3989 Distributed To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:20:25 -0800 (PST) This Week's Current Batch, as set at the beginning of this Nomic Week, consists of the following Proposals, which are hereby distributed: No. Proposer Priority AI Name 3987 Peekee 8 1 Probate Fix 2.1 (#381) 3988 Elysion 5 2 Harsher Blot Penalties (#378) 3989 t 0 1 Quick Minting When It Is Needed (#376) Proposal 3989 is Disinterested. -----3. Promotor Wes' distribution of P3990 >From magik-@aracnet.com Thu Mar 16 18:37:08 2000 Subject: OFF: Proposal 3990 Distributed To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-off) Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:34:11 -0800 (PST) This Week's Current Batch, as set at the beginning of this Nomic Week, also consists of the following Proposal, which is hereby distributed: No. Proposer Priority AI Name 3990 Murphy 10 2 Agora Abhors a Vacuum (#386) Proposal 3988 "Harsher Blot Penalties" by Elysion was Distributed accidentally, due to our error, and thus the Voting Period for it immediately ends, all Votes are canceled, and it is added back into the Queue, retaining it's interal number of #378. We apologize for any inconvenience. ======================================================================== Judge elJefe's Arguments: As Wes has already admitted his guilt, I have little choice but to return a judgment of TRUE, which I hereby do. It seems that this was a technical violation which was instantly corrected by Wes. I don't quite see the point of making a CFJ. If I could issue a judicial order against this kind of thing, I would. ======================================================================== Judge elJefe's Evidence: ======================================================================== Judge harvel's Arguments: ======================================================================== Judge harvel's Evidence: ======================================================================== Clerk of the Courts harvel -- Michael Slone - http://vir.fclib.org/~harvel/ Now feebly commence a sentence. -- Gertrude Stein