Not my proposal, I think you're confusing me with someone else.
-Aris
On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 2:09 PM V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
