I am grateful and flattered for your attention given to this Judgement, I believe discussion like this makes for great gameplay.
Anyway, onto it: I present the following as counterargument to the argument that "start of the month" should be an instant or "only one point each month" instead of a period of time. R1023 "A requirement to perform an action at an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant." I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and be acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where the intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt becoming a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever", but it was allowed to happen, without these 'Judge Interventions'. I don't believe 'Judge Intervention' should apply to supersede the lack of other arguments to prevent my scam (or any other "scam", really). To put it more poetically: Rules can be flawed. *We* are flawed - but we *grow* via finding flaws and using them as opportunities to learn, fix and correct our nomic and understanding to become even stronger next time. I myself am very flawed, but I deeply appreciate the feedback I get regarding my flaws, because I can use them to grow - this scam is evidence of that! Before my scam had many more holes, but now it has strengthened to deserved a huge wall of text via embracing my flaws and the help to surpass them. That is definitely something, that is *growth* which I have acquired. Turning a blind eye to our own errors and needing to resort to dishonesty in Judgement to protect the ideal that the Rules "should work" even when they don't stunts our growth as people. As a nomic I believe we should moves forwards and gathers more intellectual wealth, to become an example for all other nomics, not hide behind catchphrases to just protect the would-be ego of Agora. On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy > it up > > a bit so that things are more clear: > > > > Gratuitous argument for that CFJ: > > > > There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most > recent > > version of my scam goes like this: > > > > ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least > one > > Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for > > auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins.". > > During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just the first > > Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is still true. > > There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the Surveyor put > the > > first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put up yet another > > Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more Estates, during > > the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I deputized > for, > > from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because it has > "expired > > more than fourteen days ago". > > I submit the following as a (responsive) gratuitous argument: > > First, background. Let's look at the text of the rule: > > "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one estate, the > Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for > auction..." > > And let's look at the loop Cuddlebeam suspects exists, and tries to > use as evidence for eir deuptization: > > 1. Agora checks for Estates owned by Agora. > 2. At least one Estate is owned by Agora. In fact, five are! > 3. The Surveyor is required to put one Estate up for auction. > 4. o correctly puts an Estate up for auction, as required. > 5. Agora checks for Estates owned by Agora. > 6. At least one Estate is owned by Agora. In fact, four are! > 7. The Surveyor must put an Estate up for auction, and continue until > all Estates are up for auction. > > I will argue that part 5 of this postulated loop does not happen, > preventing further events. Additionally, I believe part 6 of this > postulated loop is fulfilled by part 4. If either of those arguments > are TRUE, Part 7 (which represents the rest of the loop) never occurs. > I will also provide arguments why, even arguments against parts 5 and > 6 of the loop never happen, the Judge should still intervene and vote > TRUE to treat Agora Right Good Forever. > > On part 5 of the loop: I am reasonably convinced that Agora does not > check the number of Estates owned by Agora more than once. > > The first clause of 2491 specifically uses the language "At the start > of each month." Cuddlebeam's arguments conspicuously leave out the > word "At," which I believe is a key word. "At" implies that the > specific mechanism that causes an Estate to come to auction happens on > a specified time. Specifically, it specifies that the action is > triggered by the passage of time to a new month. If the mechanism that > triggers an auction occurs at the start of each month, it would be > impossible for it to happen twice in once month. This is affirmed by > common knowledge--things only "start," begin, or are onset once. > Because of the distinct use of "start," in its common language used as > "outset, beginning," and "At," implying an isolated triggered time, I > contend that there is only one point each month at which Agora checks > the number of Estates. This prevents part 5 of the loop from > happening, meaning Cuddlebeam's attempt to deputize for Surveyor was > invalid. > > On part 6 of the loop: If the loop passes arguments against part 5 of > the loop, I believe the one estate placed for auction is sufficient to > fulfill the requirement for all subsequent loops. > > The third clause of 2491 states "...the Surveyor shall put one Estate > which is owned by Agora up for auction..." The use of the word "one" > is key here. In the second loop, Agora would check for Estates, and > then require one estate to be placed up for auction. Since 2491 > requires "one estate" be placed for auction rather than "an estate," I > contend that the obligation is fulfilled by the original one estate > placed for auction. This fulfills every subsequent instance of the > part 7 check, making Cuddlebeam's attempt to deputize for Surveyor > invalid. > > On the loop writ large: If the arguments above are not affirmed, it > will either be impossible for the Surveyor to fulfill eir obligation > to place sufficient Estates for auction OR the Surveyor will be > required to automate an infinite number of actions at the start of > each month in which Agora owns at least one Estate. > > The loop assumes that when the Surveyor places an Estate up for > auction, that Estate is removed from Agora's possession. This is not > true. According to the third paragraph of 2491, the Estate is not > transferred to the winning bidder until the end of the Auction period. > Therefore, in every postulated loop, Agora sees five estates > available. Since every loop has five estates, that means that this > loop is infinite as long as Agora owns at least one Estate. There are > two possible resulting impacts, which would be subject to debate: > > 1. If a discrete Estate could be placed for auction multiple times > simultaneously, the Surveyor could automate an infinite number of > submissions of the same estate to fulfill all obligations. In the case > of estates A, B, and C, the Surveyor could (as has been Agoran > custom), submit Estate A for auction and then automate an infinite > number of submissions. This creates a pretty big problem in assessing > which player won the auction, but Agoran custom could provide a > common-law solution. > > 2. If a discrete Estate can not be placed for auction multiple times > simultaneously, then it is impossible for the Surveyor to ever fulfill > eir obligation. Even if the Surveyor places all Estates in Agora's > possession to auction, Agora will still check and see that it owns at > least one Estate. In the case of estates A, B, and C, the Surveyor > would be required to place all three for auction. However, on the > fourth loop, Agora would still see that it owns three Estates and > require the Surveyor to place an Estate for auction. Since A, B, and C > are already at auction, the Surveyor will be unable to fulfill the > fourth obligation and unable to publish eir full monthly report. > > Both scenarios are harmful in different ways. The first presents a > pretty bad common law fix that would be particularly bad for new > players and new surveyors. It's also a precedent that infinite loops > have certain conditions and resolutions which is a can of worms that > the legislature should likely avoid. However, it does achieve the > effect intended: the Surveyor, in months in which Agora owns an > Estate, would place one Estate for auction. The second scenario is > incredibly bad for pretty obvious reasons. We would have a new > Surveyor every month, and it would be a race on the 21st of each month > to see who gets to be the next Surveyor. This is probably harmful to > the integrity of the position and the integrity of Agoran elections. > In the event the three arguments against the mechanisms of the loop > fail, I urge the Judge consider intervening in the case to prevent > either of these nightmare scenarios. Intervening in this way is best > for the health of Agora, which would be a Right Good way to Treat > Agora. > > The rules are clear here--this loop doesn't work, and if it does we > set disastrous precedent and trajectory for Agora. For that reason, I > strongly urge a decision of "TRUE" on the CFJ “I am the Surveyor,” > submitted by o. Additionally, if the Judge delivers a decision of > "TRUE" because of arguments against parts 5 or 6 of the loop, I urge > the Referee to assign a card to Cuddlebeam. > > > -grok >
