Good, ok. So we're all winners, and a proposal adopted June 21st by
aris changed the text to "without".
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 4:55 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> [Note also reward claim is at the bottom of this judgement].
>
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
>> > > {{I call a CFJ on "A player that announces intent to perform an
>> > > action without N objections does not need to wait four days before
>> > > performing it"}}
>> >
>> > This is CFJ 3548. I assign it to Murphy.
>>
>> I remove Murphy as judge of this CFJ, and reassign it to G..
>>
>> > > ==Argument==
>> > >
>> > > The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N
>> > > Objections*, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent
>> > > was announced at least 4 days earlier."
>> > >
>> > > "With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but
>> > > there is no time period enumerated for performing an action without
>> > > N objections. I guess a time period should be read in as a matter
>> > > of common law (to stop people from ratifying themselves winners
>> > > instantly) but still.
>
> I submit the following judgement for CFJ 3548:
>
> If the Rules state an action CAN be performed Without N Objections, it
> must satisfy all of a set of conditions (1)-(6) in Rule 1728 to be
> performed.
>
> I'll assume that the attempted action in question meets conditions
> 1,3,4, and 6 as these vary depending on the situation, and aren't the
> subject of the CFJ.
>
> For condition (5), "Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as
> defined by other rules", R2124 is fairly straightforward, Agora is
> satisfied:
>
> 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then
> it has fewer than N objectors;
>
> It is clear that, at the moment an Intent is posted, then the intent
> has no Objections, as "A person CANNOT support or object to an
> announcement of intent before the intent is announced". So for a
> Without N Objections intent, condition (5) is true when the intent is
> posted. Any other reading would break Dependent actions entirely.
>
> So, condition (2) reads:
> 2. If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N
> Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced
> at least 4 days earlier.
>
> Textually, this does not apply to Without N Objections, only With N
> Objections, so by the text, this condition is met (i.e. doesn't apply)
> for a Without N Objections action.
>
> The only counter-argument I can see is as follows: "Since there's no
> method called "With N Objections", it's obviously a typo, and it's clear
> that we should read it as applying to "Without N Objections." This is
> the "common law" interpretation that the Caller suggests.
>
> However, such an interpretation goes against R217: "When interpreting
> and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence."
> Furthermore, I don't think it's in the "best interests of the game" to
> interpret this as a typo and say "With = Without". A large part of the
> fun in the game is looking for textual loopholes, and when one is
> painfully clear, we should abide by it, and it's for the good of the
> game to permit this kind of classic Agora Nomic gameplay.
>
> Also, the History is worth noting. The "with N Objections" text was
> inserted into R1728 by Proposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016.
> Alexis has been known for inserting purposeful scams in the rules, and
> for using loopholes (most recently, just around this same time, see
> R2486), and changing a negative to a positive is a classic way to sneak
> in a loophole. It is quite possible that this was purposeful, so we
> can't say the "intent" of the Proposal, which was correctly adopted, was
> or wasn't to insert a loophole. Whether or not it was purposeful, it is
> for the good of the game that we respect and accept that this very
> textually clear loophole was fully vetted by the voters, and allow it to
> function and for whomever finds it to exploit it.
>
> TRUE.
>
> ----------------------------
>
> I claim my reward for delivering the above judgement.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
>From V.J Rada
