Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not recorded anywhere.
-- Trigon On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:16 D. Margaux <[email protected] wrote: > COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report) > > Date of last report: 20 Jan 2019 > Date of this report: 29 Jan 2019 > > Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. > Information in this report is not self-ratifying. > > > Open cases (CFJs) > ----------------- > > 3695 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.: > "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule > entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the > amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001." > > 3696 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.: > "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule > entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the > amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001." > > 3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D. > Margaux won the game by politics in this message." > > 3698 called 22 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D. > Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations." > > 3699 called 29 January 2019 by Telnaior, assigned 29 January 2019 to > Trigon: "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector > 05." > > Highest numbered case: 3699 > > Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report. > > > Recently-delivered verdicts and implications > -------------------------------------------- > > > Day Court Judge Recent > ------------------------------ > D. Margaux 3685, 3686, 3690*, 3691*, 3694 > [11/2 11/2 12/25 12/25 01/20] > > G. 3679, 3680, 3688, 3691, 3695, 3696 > [11/2 11/2 11/11 12/2 01/16 01/16] > > Murphy 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689 > [11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14] > > Trigon 3683, 3684, 3699 > [11/1 11/1 01/29] > > Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases) > ------------------------------ > ATMunn 3690 > [12/2] > > * Indicates that the CFJ was reassigned to this judge. > > (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 > -------------------------- > > > ********************* CFJ 3695 and CFJ 3696 > > ***3695 & 3696 Background message from twg: > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is > a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include > "quang" and "spaaace".) > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to > > ***3695 & 3696 response by ais523 > > I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for > > "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk". > (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!) > > And as a followup, the most relevant of the many nkep precedents > appears to be CFJ 2625 (which is almost exactly this situation, > attempting to act on behalf of another player using a word that has not > been publicly defined). I disagree with the outcome of that case (as > you can see from the arguments), and I'm not sure it gives us any > guidance for sorting out this situation anyway (as unlike in CFJ 2625, > there's no reason to suppose that the player in question knows the > meaning of the word, nor that they are paying enough attention to the > game to object to an attempt to use it incorrectly). > > > > ***3695 & 3696 arguement from D. Margaux: > > I have no idea how this resolves. > > One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune > to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting > on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” > something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game > action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate > from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”). > > ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to D. Margaux: > > I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649. > > -twg > > > > > ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to ais523: > > Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a > mechanism for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has > announced is unknown to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is > being taken is perfectly cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for > another reason.) > > -twg > > > > ***3695 & 3696 arguement from G. responding to twg: > > > There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public > communication > has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not just a single Agoran - > that's the AGAINT precedents, arguably more famous than nkep. > > History of AGAINT: Someone privately communicated with the Assessor > ahead of voting to say "when I vote AGAINT, it's a vote FOR." Everyone > not in the know assumed it was a typo and a clear vote AGAINST. Result: > using a private language/code doesn't work, it either fails entirely or > has the assumed typo meaning (depending on context). > > > ***3695 & 3696 response by D. Margaux: > > Here’s a thought experiment to sharpen the point. > > Imagine that I don’t know any Spanish at all, but I’ve been told that > “uno” is a number in that language (but not which number it is). I > then give the message, “I spend uno energy.” If twg speaks Spanish and > knows that word, then have I communicated to him a choice of energy > expenditure here? I think yes: the communicative content of the > message does not depend on my internal mental state, but instead upon > the signs that I am transmitting in broader social context, which is > one where “uno” definitely means “one” (even if I don’t know that > myself). > > Or what if I am told that -e^(i * pi) is a positive integer, but don’t > know which one it is and refuse to google it. Do I communicate a valid > choice if I tell twg that I choose -e^(i * pi)? > > If “rau” signifies a number in a legitimate language that twg > understands (twgese), then my election of rau+1 should work in the > same way as “uno” and “e^(i * pi)” do in the above hypotheticals. > However, I think that “rau” actually doesn’t signify a number in any > language (because private languages are impossible), and so twg didn’t > actually communicate a number when e sent eir message and my election > of rau+1 also doesn’t work. > > > On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:16 PM, D. Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a > pigeon > >> or dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, > an > >> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time. > > > > I apologize, I should have been more precise. > > > > I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an > > anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you > sent > > your first message with the word “rau.” Hope this clarifies things. :-) > > > >> Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, > >> because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message > did not > >> communicate that information to me. > > > > I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I > think > > anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. > > Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication > that you > > must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be > > satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols > that I > > convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by > their > > history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you > don’t > > need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; > instead, > > all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate > the > > meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social > context. > > > > Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that > you > > yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve > communicated > > to you in my message. :-) > > > > [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this > email is > > essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that > private > > languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no > meaning in > > either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think > about > > Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]] > > > > > *** 3695 & 3696 proto-judgement from G.: > > The exact CFJ statement does not extend the quote far enough. The full > text is: > > > SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount > > of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that > > cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also > > fulfilled this obligation. > > The "via any method that cannot be understood" is part of the SHALL > requirement. So the requirement is fulfilled when a combatant communicates > to the resolver, without being understood by the other combatant. > > Now, to communicate is to be understood; that is, common use of the term > includes the notion that information is successfully imparted, and if > understanding is not actually received, communication did not occur > (example > use: "what we have here, is a failure to communicate.") > > So: the combatant must be understood by the resolver, without being > understood by the other combatant. > > No one can ever be sure that anyone else truly "understands" something, but > we can use the standard of what a "typical current Agoran" might > understand. > So the communication must be made via a method that a typical Agoran would > understand, but a different typical Agoran wouldn't understand. > > Clearly, this is impossible if the method uses public information for all > communication on the matter. To use the "typical" Agoran as a standard is > to assume that both parties, given the same public information, would come > to the same understanding. If a hash (or "secret language") is used, then > when the hash is first published, neither party understands/has been > communicated to. When the translation is published, both parties > understand. There is never a time when one of the typical Agorans > understands, but not the other. > > Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. > a > code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is > trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X > understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X > doesn't > understand". Which makes perfect sense. > > But under the assumption that the method of communication is entirely > conducted in public, FALSE: these conditions are never met. > > ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to proto-judgement: > > On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:48 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information > (e.g. a > > code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this > is > > trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X > > understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X > doesn't > > understand". Which makes perfect sense. > > Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively > (if we strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was > a fun excuse but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for > communication between the resolver (me) and the person who first used > it in a public message (coincidentally, also me). > > If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be > because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I > realise that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% > certain, in hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway. > > *** 3695 & 3696 response by G. to D. Margaux: > > On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:> > >> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be > >> because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise > >> that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in > >> hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway. > > > > I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be > > followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the > > prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.” > > I remember disagreeing with 3649 it at the time, can't remember if I > attempted to file a Motion or just discussed it a bit and let it pass. In > any case, here's my take on Tenhigitsune's case (proto-judgement): > > tl;dr you can't "communicate to" someone on behalf of a zombie because you > can't send messages on their behalf. > > In general, in Agora, we abstract a lot of things (real currencies become > virtual currencies, etc.) However, we are grounded in some baseline > realities. Of course, some of those "realities", such as whether free will > exists, are deep philosophical questions - over time, Agora has built up > some precedents around those. > > One such precedent is in CFJ 1895 (a discussion of free will and > Aristotelian causality). This found that a "baseline axiom" in Agora is > that the game is played by discrete, identifiable agents of free will - > i.e. "natural persons". The assumption is that "personhood" is absolute - > you can create a legal construct that accepts one person's actions on > behalf of another, but the agent never "becomes" the other person. > > This fundamental assumption extents to the concept of "knowledge". Because > each person's knowledge is fundamentally independent, an actor cannot "pass > on a principal's knowledge" (i.e. "communicate to") a third party. Again, > we could put in Rules-language to create a legal fiction that allows it, > but such communication cannot happen naturally. > > Currently, the R2466 explicitly forbids the legal fiction that an actor can > act on behalf of a principal to "send a message". While the context of > "send a message" is generally "send an email", in this case it should be > taken colloquially and broadly - one can "send a message" in a variety of > ways. So in the broader context, "sending a message" is simply to > "communicate" to someone, whether via email, in-person, or a horse's head > in someone's bed. > > So an actor cannot communicate with anyone on-behalf-of a principal. In > R2466 this is explicit, but even without the prohibition in R2466, it is > impossible: as per CFJ 1895 "Every assumed act of free will can be traced > to a particular person's desire. Thus, as final cause and intention, this > intention, and free will is, also non-transferable, in the most fundamental > sense." The "act of communicating" is fundamentally an act of free will, > an act traceable to a particular person's desire. And that person is the > actor, not the principal[*]. > > The Rule "Space Battles" states that a certain action is accomplished by > communicating to another party - the communication is the action. The Rule > is Power-1. R2466 is power-3, so this trumps any ability that might be > implied in lower-powered rules, and as discussed above, there's no > "natural" ability for an actor to communicate on behalf of a principal[**]. > Therefore, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another to communicate the > required information. > > [*] This is specific to cases where the actor "originated" the original > thought (i.e. the origin of the message was the actor's free will, not the > principal's). For example, if the Principal (of eir own accord) sends a > message to a private party, and the private party forwards the message to a > forum, it's possible to find that the Principal communicated with the forum > "via the private party". But this is only true if the Principal, as an > agent of free will, originated the content of the message. > > [**] This discussion of what may happen "naturally" is necessary because > it's physically impossible to block two free agents from communicating: a > rule that says "two people CANNOT communicate about X" would have no > meaning when the two people actually did so, which is why we use SHALL NOT > to control acts of communication between free agents. So if R2466 were > purporting to invalidate communications between free agents, it would fail > due to physical reality. > > *** 3695 & 3696 further response by G. to D. Margaux: > > On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > >>> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, > >>> detailed in the rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to > >>> the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle > >>> 0001." > > I think this is a very different situation then the zombie one, and there's > a strong case to be made for TRUE. So starting a different thread here. > > Let's say D. Margaux and twg had the following private conversation: > > twg: I've picked a secret number - I'll call it tau. Here's a hash so > you know that I've chosen what tau is ahead of time. > > D. Margaux: Sure, I'll bite: I wish to spend tau+1. > > twg: Right, I now know exactly how much you wish to spend. > > Then when twg later publishes both sides, e reveals the hash contents, and > tau has a reasonable, appropriate value. > > Now there's two ways to adjudicate this: > 1. "communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy" must be judged > strictly with all the onus of communication on the combatant. That is, D. > Margaux's messages alone must contain sufficient information to communicate > a value to any typical Agoran observer privy to D. Margaux's messages (but > not privy to the contents of the hash). This would result in false. > > 2. "communicate to the resolver [twg]" can include context known to twg. > Here, D. Margaux of eir own free will communicated sufficient information > to > twg for the value to be determined by the resolver. While risky on D. > Margaux's part, it was eir risk to take, of eir own free will. This would > result in true. > > In general, for private conversations, we've tended to lean towards #2: > allowing lingo and context to evolve, or allowing private contracts / > communications to work. That allows for more flexible, enjoyable gameplay > (where "clever arrangements" are part of that). The downside is, if done > in > an official context (not a contract), it puts some onus on the Resolver to > privately decide if weird communication attempts qualify (if e publicly > reveals the two combatant's values, and one turns out to be invalidly > submitted, e's revealed the other combatant's value too early and has > broken > the rules). This might be especially onerous/unfair if the duty falls to > "the non-combatant who has least recently registered". > > If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take > twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. > Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. > So it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather > than a "what constitutes communication". > > That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's > thoughts between #1 and #2. > > > ********************* CFJ 3698 and CFJ 3699 > > ***3698 & 3699 scam context from D. Margaux: > > In this message, I use the following abbreviations for political parties: > > COS - Costume Conservatives > PLA - Platonic Isolationists > NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers > SUL - Substance Use Liberals > MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party > > Pursuant to Rule 2542, as Arbitor, I award myself 1,000,000,000 favours in > COS. > > I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000 > favours > in PLA. > > I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000 > favours > in NPR. > > I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000 > favours > in SUL. > > I spend 12,000,000 Costume Conservative favours to purchase 4,000,000 > favours > in MLP. > > I hereby spend favours to purchase influence over the corresponding > politician, > as specified in the table below: > > Name Favours Spent Echelon Influence > Purchased > ------------------------- ------------------- ------- > ------------------- > Alexander the Mediocre 100,000 NPR Favours RR 200,000 > Hillary Rodham Clinton 100,000 NPR Favours Row 150,000 > Jim "Banana Jim" Bennett 100,000 NPR Favours RR 200,000 > Zeno of Citium 100,000 NPR Favours Row 150,000 > > Benjamin Surreali 100,000 MLP Favours Row 150,000 > Lex Luthor 100,000 MLP Favours Row 150,000 > Napoleon Blownapart 100,000 MLP Favours RR 200,000 > Zeno of Elea 100,000 MLP Favours RR 200,000 > > Kim Ping Pong 99,999 PLA Favours Power 66,666 > Loseston Churchvalley 100,000 PLA Favours Upper 100,000 > Politician McP[1] 100,000 PLA Favours Upper 100,000 > Xi Kingpin 100,000 PLA Favours Row 100,000 > > The Princess of Andorra 100,000 SUL Favours RR 200,000 > Theresa Cannot 100,000 SUL Favours RR 200,000 > The Wicked Witch OTW[2] 100,000 SUL Favours Row 150,000 > Eric 100,000 SUL Favours Row 150,000 > > Ronald Ray-Gun 100,000 COS Favours Upper 100,000 > The Fall Guy 100,000 COS Favours RR 200,000 > Genghis Khaaaaaan 100,000 COS Favours Upper 100,000 > John Carter 100,000 COS Favours RR 200,000 > > [1] Politician McPoliticianface > [2] The Wicked Witch of the West > > > I announce that I advise the politicians reflected in the table below: > > Post Politician > --------- --------------------------- > Host Kim Ping Pong > Planner Genghis Khaaaaaan > Enforcer Ronald Ray-Gun > Organizer Politician McPoliticianface > Creep Loseston Churchvalley > Schmoozer Hillary Rodham Clinton > Decorator Zeno of Citium > Loner Eric > Drunk Lex Luthor > Mystery Xi Kingpin > Wild One The Wicked Witch of the West > Hat Rack Benjamin Surreali > > > ***3698 caller D. Margaux's message and arguements: > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the > rules > and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.” > > ***3698 & 3699 response by Aris: > > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. I’m > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be a > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. > > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. > > -Aris > > ***3698 & 3699 email chain & 3699 caller D. Margaux's message: > > I didn’t plan to abuse any of the other powers of Arbitor, but this could > solve > that concern: > > I CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule > violations.” > > I authorize twg to act on my behalf to assign this CFJ to any player other > than > emself, and thereafter to act on my behalf to exercise any other lawful > powers > of the Arbitor in relation to this CFJ. > > (I think this works under the Corona-coin-gift precedent, if twg agrees.) > > > On Jan 22, 2019, at 6:19 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't even know where to start figuring this out, so it would be good > to > > CFJ "D. Margaux has committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations", > but we > > need some way to get it assigned without D. Margaux interfering via eir > > position as Arbitor (the earliest e can be impeached is Friday). > > > > Any ideas? A Cabinet Order of Certiorari would work, but only if ATMunn > wants > > to judge it emself. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > >> On Monday, January 21, 2019 5:43 AM, Aris Merchant > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum > >> possible sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the > >> degree that the violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an > >> abuse of an official position.", and this is all of the above. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:25 PM Aris Merchant > >> [email protected] wrote: > >> > >>> Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear > what’s > >>> going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ > 3597, but > >>> I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m > not > >>> sure about that though). > >>> -Aris > >>>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey [email protected] > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. > >>>> ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ > >>>> Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that > might > >>>> indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a > >>>> different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. > The > >>>> official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" > favours > >>>> actually does anything at all? > >>>> -twg > > > ********************* CFJ 3699 > > ***3699 caller Trigon's message & context: > > The problem there is that it's Rule 2576 itself that specifies the asset's > destruction if it leaves the hands of the specified class, should a class > have been specified (which, for spaceships, it has). If that's seen to > contradict the clause that the Lost and Found Department can own anything, > then No Cretans Need Apply says that it can indeed own anything. Then > again, that contradiction might not invalidate the part where the asset > gets destroyed anyway. > > Eh, what the heck, it's free. > > I CFJ barring D. Margaux "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found > Department is in Sector 05". This basically comes down to whether or not > the Spaceship in question was destroyed upon transfer to the Lost and Found > Department when I was deregistered by FAGE. (I'm guessing the spaceship > from zombie-me was self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which > simplifies things a little) > > > On 2019-01-30 03:44, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Madeline <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have > been > destroyed the moment it entered the L&F office upon my deregistration two > weeks > ago. > Under Rule 2576 (power=3), “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the > Lost and > Found Department can own assets of every type.” I think that trumps any > other > rule that would purport to limit ownership of spaceships to players. >
