FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links goes right to spam.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report for TODO date) > > Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. > Information in this report is not self-ratifying. > > > Open cases (CFJs) > ----------------- > 3643 called by ais523 18 June 2018, assigned to Gaelan 24 June 2018: "In > the above-quoted message, Corona published a self-ratifying report." > > 3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to PSS 24 June 2018: "G. has > satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR." > > 3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to ATMunn 24 June 2018: "The > fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is > unforgivable for the purposes of R2559." > > 3649 called by Kenyon 29 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 1 July 2018: > "At the time this CFJ was initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta > Ribbon." > > Highest numbered case: 3649 > > Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report. > > > Recently-delivered verdicts and implications > -------------------------------------------- > 3642 called by Aris 15 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 25 June 2018: > "Proposal 8050 has been resolved." Attempted resolution was sent to > agora-official, but was ineffective because most players didn't receive > it (their subscriptions were lost due to mail server errors). > > 3644 called by PSS 18 June 2018, judged TRUE by G. 1 July 2018: "Corona > issued a humiliating public reminder in the below quoted text." Players > can't guarantee actual humiliation, thus clear indication that > humiliation might be a thing is sufficient. > > 3646 called by Corona 23 June 2018, judged TRUE by V.J. Rada 24 June > 2018, corrected to FALSE 26 June 2018: "My conditional vote in the > appended message evaluates to FOR each proposal." Ineffective due to > the ambiguity from CFJ 3647 (see below). > > 3647 called by ATMunn 24 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 26 June 2018: > "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053." > Ineffective due to ambiguity. > > > Day Court Judge Recent > ------------------------------ > Corona 3627, 3628, 3641 > [02/14 02/14 06/17] > Murphy 3626, 3627, 3628 > [03/01 03/01 03/01] > G. 3631, 3637, 3636, 3644 > [04/20 04/30 05/04 06/24] > Gaelan 3638, 3643 > [06/04 06/24] > V.J. Rada 3640, 3646, 3649 > [06/17 06/24 07/01] > PSS 3645, 3647 > [06/24 06/24] > > Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases) > ------------------------------ > ATMunn 3633, 3648 > [04/29 06/24] > > (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court > will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will > generally be honored, even for non-court judges.) > > > Context/arguments/evidence > -------------------------- > > *** 3642 caller Aris's arguments: > > Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to > receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken > therein as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's > also set never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my > technical domain of control. > > *** 3642 G.'s gratuitous evidence: > > The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the list > reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers below in > case it helps interpret anything: > > Return-Path: <[email protected]> > Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora; > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18]) > by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id > w5EImGAx024904 > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16 > -0700 > Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223]) > by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id > w5EIm5nl013556 > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700 > Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -0000 > Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1) > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -0000 > Delivered-To: [email protected] > Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -0000 > Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139) > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -0000 > Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163]) > by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id > w5EIlNUY013073 > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 > X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu > [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm) > by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id > w5EIlNOo032150 > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) > for <[email protected]>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 > X-UW-Orig-Sender: [email protected] > X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT) > From: Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> > To: Agora Official <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT > X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: > 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data: > 2018.4.20.5491003 > X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu > X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report= > REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, > BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0, > NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, > NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, > SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, > __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0, > __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM 0, > __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0, > __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0, > __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0, > __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, > __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, > __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, > __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, > __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, > __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0 > Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052 > X-BeenThere: [email protected] > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 > Precedence: list > List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)" <agora-official.agoranomic.org> > List-Unsubscribe: > <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > List-Archive: > <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/> > List-Post: <mailto:[email protected]> > List-Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=help> > List-Subscribe: > <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=subscribe> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Errors-To: [email protected] > Sender: "agora-official" <[email protected]> > X-Sophos-SenderHistory: > ip=71.19.146.223,fs=117188,da=5528554,mc=8,sc=0,hc=8,sp=0,fso=5001784,re=1,sd=4,hd=8 > > > I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows. > Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals. > > [Remainder of message cut] > > *** 3642 judge PSS's arguments: > > The case before the court today raises a question of fact and a > complex and multi-part question of the law. The question of fact asks > what occurred to cause The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, > The Assessor G.'s resolutions of proposals 8050-8052 to not be > received by The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris and others. The > question of law asks what legal effects these occurrences had on the > adoption of proposal 8050. First, I will establish the facts and > address the question of fact, before proceeding to the question of > law. > > At the time of calling the CFJ, two attempts had been made by The > Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Assessor G. to resolve > proposal 8050. Both of these attempts were made by sending an email to > [email protected], a public forum, according to the > Registrar's Report of June 12, 2018. Neither of these attempts were > received by The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris. As gratuitous > evidence, The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Assessor > G. provided the headers of the first of these two attempts for > analysis by the court. At the request of the court, The Right Heroic, > Victorious, and Honourable G. provided the headers of the Registrar's > Report of June 12, 2018, for comparison. Through both manual analysis > and text difference comparison, the court has found no meaningful > difference between the headers of the two emails, provided for > comparison. As a result of not finding a cause from analysis of the > headers, the court sought server logs from The Victorious and Right > Honourable, The Distributor omd. The Victorious and Right Honourable, > The Distributor omd was unable to provide the sought logs, as a result > of the settings on the server. However, in eir place, The Victorious > and Right Honourable, The Distributor omd provided a report outlining > the problem. According to the report, a Python script had caused > corruption of the configuration file for > [email protected], therefore causing the server to revert > to the configuration file from 2013. This caused The Victorious and > Honourable caller Aris and all other persons who had signed up to > receive mail from [email protected] after 2013 to have > their subscriptions cancelled. These facts seem to fully explain why > the the attempts to resolve proposals 8050-8052 were not received by > The Victorious and Honourable Aris and others. As no other > explanations have been put forth and no objections to these facts have > been heard, the court takes these facts as absolute and resolved. > > The court having established the facts of the matter before it, the > court proceeds to consideration of the question of law. The Victorious > and Honourable caller Aris argues that CFJ 1905 states, "non-receipt > of a message by those who have arraigned [sic.] to receive messages > via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken therein as invalid." > The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris goes further stating that e > does not believe that the message enters eir technical domain of > control. The facts, resolved above, support the assertion that the > message never entered air technical domain of control. In CFJ 1905, > The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and Honourable Murphy found > that for a message to fulfill the requirement of Rule 478 that it be > "sent via a Public Forum", it must "re-send the message to a > reasonably large subset of the set of all person who have reasonably > arranged to receive messages via the public forum." The problem that > arises here is whether the set of people subscribed in 2013, who would > have received The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The > Assessor G.'s message is a "reasonably large subset" of those who had > arranged to receive messages via the public forum now. For the > purposes of this determination, it serves the game best, if a priority > is placed on reception by players and those others who might > reasonably be expected to respond to or engage with the message, > therefore the court now determines that additionally the subset of > "the set of all person who have reasonably arranged to receive > messages via the public forum" who did not receive the message and the > effects that non-reception had should also be considered. In this > instance, the subset who did not receive the message would be > substantial, as a substantial portion of the current player base has > registered or begun engagement from their current email addresses > since 2013 and in consideration of the effects of non-reception, the > court observes that many players attempted to take actions which would > be rendered IMPOSSIBLE by the message that they did not receive. Thus, > under the three standards that the court has considered, the court > finds that the messages sent by The Right Heroic, Victorious, and > Honourable, The Assessor G. were not public, as they did not fulfill > the requirement of being "sent via a Public Forum", therefore the > court finds the statement, "Proposal 8050 has been resolved." to be > FALSE. However, the court also observes other precedents that relate > to this CFJ and addresses them below. > > The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and Honourable Murphy > overturned the precedent of CFJ 1314 in eir judgement of CFJ 1905. The > court now agrees with The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and > Honourable Murphy in eir overturning of CFJ 1314 because CFJ 1314 > would allow messages to take effect without being "sent via a Public > Forum", under the tests outlined above. > > In CFJ 866, The Victorious Oerjan held that a message should be > interpreted as having been received at the time that it enters the > recipient's technical domain of control. The court views this as an > appropriate assessment. As an extension of this, the court finds that > "receiving a message" should be interpreted synonymously with "a > message entering one's technical domain of control". However, the > court is also aware that intentional measures could be taken in bad > faith to cause messages to be hard to find, such as making a message > appear as spam. The court notes that if such actions are taken, the > message may not have been received, even if it has entered one's > technical domain of control. Additionally, such actions could be > construed as a violation of Rule 478, as such an action would create a > technical obstacle to participation in the forum. > > In CFJ 1646, The Victorious and Right Honourable Taral found that a > message should be construed as effective when one sends it. The court > finds now that such a precedent is problematic, as exhibited in the > case of CFJ 2058, discussed below. As a result, the court finds that a > message should be considered effective when it has been "sent via a > Public Forum", according to the tests outlined above, or has been > received by all of its intended recipients, if sent under the clause > that reads "sent to all players and containing a clear designation of > intent to be public." The standard is intentionally more stringent > under the second clause as it is a less well protected method. Rule > 478 states, "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at > the time date-stamped on that message." This is interpreted to refer > to that time at which it is sent from the mailing list to the > individual recipients, unless a significant, irregular, and > game-changing delay occurred between this and its reception. However, > such delays are rare and thus the difference is normally minute and > insignificant, but the court does recommend an amendment to Rule 478 > to make such a distinction clear. > > In CFJ 2058, The Honourable cmealerjr raised the question of the > potentially non-trivial time difference discussed above, but did not > address or attempt to resolve it. However, the court notes its > disagreement with The Victorious and Elusive Quazie, who found in eir > original judgement, prior to appeal that a message is published when > it leaves the sender's technical domain of control. The court now > holds that it is published when it becomes public under those tests > and standards held above. > > In CFJ 813, The Honourable Coco recognized that not all players may be > subscribed to the public forum. The court appreciates this recognition > and notes that no part of this decision should be construed to require > reception by non-subscribers, unless the non-subscriber is a member of > the "set of all person who have reasonably arranged to receive > messages via the public forum", for a message to be considered public > under the clause that reads "sent via a public forum". > > Finally, the court notes that The Victorious and Right Honourable, The > Distributor omd did not establish technological obstacles, as > disallowed by Rule 478, something occurred that causes such > technological obstacles to exist. In this noting, the court reminds > future judges that technical obstacles can occur without a violation > of Rule 478 occurring. The court notes that when such technological > obstacles have been erected or have come to exist, judges should give > the benefit of the doubt to those for whom the obstacles have been > erected. > > The court thanks the The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris for > calling the case and The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and > Honourable, The Arbitor Murphy for assigning the case. Additionally, > the court thanks The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable G. and > The Victorious and Right Honourable, The Distributor omd for their > assistance and cooperation in collecting and analyzing evidence around > the case. > > References and Evidence: > CFJ 2058 > CFJ 1905 > CFJ 1646 > CFJ 1314 > CFJ 866 > CFJ 813 > Rule 478 > The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris's arguments > Headers from the first email under question, as provided by The Right > Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Assessor G. > Headers from the Registrar's Report of June 12, 2018, as provided by > The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Registrar G. > Report from The Victorious and Right Honourable, The Distributor omd > Registrar's Report of June 12, 2018 > > *** 3643 caller ais523's evidence, quoting Corona: > > This report is intentionally false, with the sole deviation from > reality being re-ratifying the items generated > in facilities on June 4, which have been accidentaly ratified out of > existence by the last report. > > *** 3643 caller ais523's arguments: > > Precedent says that a disclaimer stating that the content of > a message is false is enough to prevent it taking actions by > announcement. Is the same true of self-ratifying reports? > > See CFJs 1971 (particularly relevant), 2069, 2830, 3000 for more > information. (Information about these CFJs is available at > <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/>). > > *** 3644 caller PSS's evidence, quoting Corona: > > I issue a humiliating public reminder to the following persons for not > voting on the current Medals of Honour decision: > > Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Corona, VJ Rada, Kenyon, Ouri, twg, > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, omd, o, Quazie, pokes, ????Telnaior > > (Not really though, if you don't feel like either candidate deserves a > medal, then just don't vote and I'll fail it) > > *** 3644 caller PSS's arguments: > > I bring the attention of the Honourable Judge to CFJ 3585, which found > that no creativity was required and that Orjan's (I'm sorry I am unable > to type your name correctly on this computer) observation that it was > not very humiliating did not impact the fulfillment of the obligation. > However, I ask that the Honourable Judge observe that in that instance > no messages explicitly suggesting that one should not feel humiliated > were communicated, but in this instance, a message explicitly reassuring > that true humiliation was not intended explicitly appears at the bottom > of the message. > > *** 3644 judge G.'s arguments: > > In general, a message doesn't automatically gain a quality because a > person says it does (that's the long-standing Agoran philosophy that "I > say it is" doesn't equate to "It is"). For example, as a lowest bar, > it's hard to claim "The following is a humiliating message: have a nice > day" is actually humiliating to anyone. > > However, for "humiliation", the question is "humiliating to whom?" > Shame is an emotion, and it's not possible for the sender of a message > to guarantee that anything that they could say would make the recipient > feel shame for a particular failure. In the context of voting in > particular, if I really meant to vote on something and forgot, then a > simple "hey, you forgot to vote" (without mentioning humiliation) might > make me feel bad because I really meant to vote. On the other hand, > allowing a vote to fail quorum is a valid legislative tactic. If I'm > using that tactic on purpose by not voting, no amount of "you should > feel humiliated/ashamed" would actually accomplish the trick of making > me feel bad. > > And even for the "have a nice day" example: I was annoyed and snippy at > a retail clerk for some dumb reason recently. They were very nice in > spite of that and said "have a nice day sir" when the transaction was > done, and it made me feel bad (and a bit humiliated) for being a jerk. > Context is everything. > > So for the purposes of R2168, the actual phraseology (including > disclaimers!) doesn't matter. As long as the message conveys that, by > R2168, the non-voters SHOULD generally reflect on whether their actions > are for the good of the game (via announcing that the message is > technically meant to flag behavior that *might* be shameful), it counts, > even with disclaimers. This is as low a bar as we can reasonably set, > and it's very low and borders on "I say it is therefore it is", but the > alternative is trying to legislate/control how people should feel about > something, which isn't at all reasonable. I find TRUE. > > *** 3645 caller Aris's evidence, quoting G.: > > The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including > revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): > > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt > https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt > > I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- > limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of > ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case > the rulesets bounce from BUS. > > *** 3645 caller Aris's arguments, responding to ais523: > >> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to >> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a >> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL >> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. >> >> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't >> it's probably because of your disclaimer. > > I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose. > A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they > want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as > the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required > information. > > *** 3645 G.'s gratuitous arguments: > > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the > link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen > it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the > only evidence. > > I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could > cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. > > Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means > actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases > that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions, > where outside references work because the specification is like this: > "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" > > for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual > announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that > has a clear specification. > > So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because > e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an > announced verb/context doesn't do the trick. > > There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub) > without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the > link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links) > would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication > timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence). > > The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a > typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message > and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct > one. > (this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if > the matter is otherwise unclear). > > I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum, I'm > not > opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the > Now, > and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail > archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to > know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't > know about that would make it easier. > > *** 3646 caller Corona's evidence: > > I withdraw my vote on these proposals. > > I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals. > > *** 3646 caller Corona's arguments: > > while this contains a conditional referring a > hypothetical future situation, that situation is not indeterminate, as I > specified "in the next instant, before any other process regulated by the > ruleset of Agora takes place", meaning it can be unambiguously logically > derived from the present situation (that is, the present situation - my > first message and the withdrawal + my second message = the hypothetical > future situation). > > *** 3646 ais523's gratuitous arguments: > > Agora does not have infinitely many players, nor > is it reasonable to believe that it could have infinitely many players > without a change to the rules. > > If other people are doing the same thing as you, then they're making > the same conditional, and at some point the conditional will talk about > an event that can't possibly occur (someone else voting) and thus fail > to evaluate. I think that makes the whole thing collapse. > > *** 3646 judge V.J. Rada's arguments: > > The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR > each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I > hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to > vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous > voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the > same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five > previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not > ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading > carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each > proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition > depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules > processes. > > This CFJ is TRUE > > *** 3646 judge V.J. Rada's re-judgement: > > When judging 3646, I forgot that it was at the time reliant on CFJ > 3647 being judged TRUE. Now that it has been judged as FALSE, and > ATMunn did not in fact vote FOR, I file a motion to reconsider CFJ > 3646 and judge it FALSE. > > *** 3647 caller ATMunn quoting twg: > > Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than > that. I don't think "I do the same thing as the last X people in > this thread" necessarily implies "I do the same thing as the last X > people in this thread _did in this thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I > have all previously performed actions other than voting on these > proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too ambiguous to > distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue > neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five > proposals. > > *** 3647 Corona's gratuitous arguments: > > You need to "publish a notice" to vote. R478/Fora > says: > > 'A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all > players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. [...] A > person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.' > > The message does not need to be sent to all players, it merely needs to be > sent via a public forum, and presumably it doesn't need to be received by > all players (excerpt from the same rule): > > 'Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.' > > Clearly, the _receiving_ player is responsible for making sure e can > receive messages, not the sender or the Registrar. > > *** 3647 judge PSS's arguments: > > The case before the court today raises only a question of law. The > case asks specifically whether The Honourable ATMunn's vote evaluates > to FOR, but generally whether shorthands are effective in taking > actions. In CFJ 3523, The Victorious and Honourable Aris addressed a > related question. In CFJ 3523, the court was faced with a question of > whether a statement, such as "i sent this to the wrong place" would > have the effect of taking those actions that appeared in a quoted > message. The Victorious and Honourable Aris, in recognition of > existing and well-established shorthands, found that it was effective > because it was unambigous and could not be reasonably misunderstood in > the context. The court believes that this same standard would > logically extend to explicit shorthands, such as that before the court > today. Additionally, game custom supports this. Shorthands, such as "I > do the same" or "I do the opposite" have often been accepted without > question. > > Now, the court must consider whether The Honourable ATMunn's vote > fulfilled the standard found above. The court finds that it does not > because the vote remains ambiguous as to whether the caster is voting > as the previous voters have done at the time of casting or the caster > is casting a conditional vote that will evaluate to whatever the vote > of the previous voters is at the time of resolution, therefore the > court judges the statement "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn > voted FOR proposal 8053." FALSE. > > References and Evidence: > Discussion of CFJ 3646 between The Honourable twg and The Victorious and > Right Learned ais523 > CFJ 3523 > > *** 3648 caller G.'s evidence: > > Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT): >> I impose summary judgement as follows: I levy a fine of 2 Blots on >> Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely >> fashion after June 1 (R2495). > > *** 3648 caller G.'s arguments: > > R2559 reads in part: >> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or >> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were >> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time, >> the following assets are created in the possession of that >> player: > > "Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset. The definition > is by inference in R2557: >> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the >> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, >> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. > which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable. > > However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice > as per an investigation of a finger-pointing. The fine in question > was levied using R2479: >> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose >> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine >> of up to 2 blots on em. > which does not mention any notion of forgiveness. > > There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct: > 1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable. > 2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the > concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable. > > FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the > fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as > forgivable. > > After reading Rules a few more times, I think this is answered by this > clause in R2479: >> Summary Judgement is imposed on the >> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official >> proceeding. > I think the Finger -> Investigation -> Forgiveness is an "official > proceeding", and since summary judgement is explicitly stated to be > outside of that, any resulting penalties are neither forgivable or > unforgivable. > > *** 3649 caller Kenyon's zombie master twg's arguments: > > If it is possible, I act on behalf of Kenyon to publicly acknowledge > that today is Agora's Birthday. > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to initiate a CFJ: "At the time this CFJ was > initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta Ribbon." > > I think it's common sense that "publicly acknowledging" something means > stating it in a public message, which it's not possible to do on behalf > of someone else, so this should be FALSE. But on the other hand, the > action of "publicly acknowledging" something doesn't appear to be > defined or referenced anywhere else in the rules, and past assumption > seems to have been that any action can be taken on behalf of a zombie > unless it's specifically prohibited, so I can see an argument for TRUE > as well. Anyone else have opinions? > -- >From V.J. Rada
