Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official [2026-04-06 17:03]:
> Aris wrote:
> > I CFJ "grok is a player".
>
> This is CFJ 4130. I assign it to juan.
(There are more game actions at the end)
I assign CFJ 4130 the following judgment:
{
Standards for player registration are notoriously lax, in the interest
of avoiding gatekeeping new players. The rule that governs registration
(R869) itself uses language that is strikingly different from other
clarity requirements in the rules:
{
An Unregistered person CAN […] register by sending a
public message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably
unambiguously eir desire to be a player at that time […].
}
Besides, the standard regarding message subjects is that they are not
relevant to game actions unless the body indicates otherwise. Or, to put
it in the traditional way, a message is to be interpreted by covering
its subject line and then reading it (CFJ 4103 and CFJ 4104).
Of course, a message may make mention of elements outside of itself,
provided they are not unreasonably hard to determine. The subject line is
trivially easy to determine, as messages are to be interpreted according
to the semantics of email (see the judgment of CFJ 4103 and CFJ 4104).
So, given all of this, this message text:
{
i declare my intention to be the type of entity that can do
the subject of this email within the shared game for which this
mailing list exists
}
can be reasonably interpreted as follows:
{
I declare my intention to be the type of entity that can play
within the shared game which this mailing list exists
}
which is the same as
{
I declare my intention to be the type of entity that can play within
Agora
}
Here's a catch: the type of entity that can play within Agora is arguably
NOT a player. It is a person. R101:
{
Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results
of these actions via Fora in order to play the game.
}
Persons can perform actions, such as calling CFJs. This is playing. So
the type of entity that can play within Agora is a person.
Even considering the lax standards for registration, I have no other
possible interpretation.
---
When interpreting rules, we are supposed (by R217) to take their text into
account first, and only later game custom, common sense, past judgments,
and the best interest of the game. So, as much as I would like to take
Agora's best interest into account, I must consider the rule's text first;
and in this case, where they are silent, there are no other reasonable
interpretations of the words in question.
I judge CFJ 4130 FALSE.
P.S.: grok was not a player at the time of the CFJ, but eir playerhood
has since ratified. I hope this does not create too big of a mess.
}
I'm tired of looking for the same precedent over and over for the
same well-established interpretations. I petition the Webmastor to
create a section of the website where judges may submit documents with
doctrine. The section may be called “Doctrine”, and the Webmastor
may even pass regulations for the process of submitting them, depending
on Agoran consent.
I'm not sure if this is a matter for the Webmastor or Arbitor.
I'll submit the first bit of doctrine:
{
THE ROLE OF SUBJECT LINES IN MESSAGE INTERPRETATION
Subject lines are not initially relevant to interpretation of
messages. This means a message is to be interpreted by covering the
subject line, and then reading it (CFJ 4103 and CFJ 4104).
If the message, however, references the subject line, it may be taken
into account. This is because messages can make reference to anything
that can be reasonably easily determined [link to other doctrine entry],
and subject lines are trivially determinable (CFJ 4103 and CFJ 4104).
Usages of this doctrine:
* CFJ 4117
* CFJ 4130
}
--
juan
Judge in the case
