My proto-judgement of CFJ 3947 follows.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:59 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I number the CFJ below 3947 and assign it to myself.
>
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 1:31 PM grok via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> CFJ: grok became a player on saturday, february 5
> >
> > CFJ gratuitous arguments: grok published intent to ratify a document
> > on friday, january 28. grok's argument was that since e was
> > deregistered due to inactivity, grok never revoked eir consent to be
> > bound by the rules of agora. the ruling in CFJ 3943 determined that
> > intending to ratify a document does not require playerhood, since
> > intents can be withdrawn at any time.
> >
> > grok published a message to business saying "i deregister" during that
> > time. CFJ 3945 found this action was ineffective.
> >
> > on february 5, grok resolved the agoran decision to ratify eir
> > document. although the document was not ratified, grok resolved the
> > intent. this satisfies CFJ 3943's concern about the ambiguity of
> > intent, and since eir deregistration attempt was ineffective, grok
> > should be a player.
> >
> > as a preempt--there may be an argument that publishing a message
> > claiming to deregister revokes one's consent to the rules, even if it
> > is ineffective. i would argue that since grok resolved eir intent and
> > called the original CFJ, eir "deregistration" message is more
> > accurately Faking since e knew it would be ineffective, and e should
> > receive discipline from the referee after eir playerhood is confirmed.
>
I proto-judge CFJ 3946 FALSE.
Arguments:
{{{
The person called grok has called this cfj, and in order to determine if e
has registered, we should consider all things e has done since being
deregistered. The list of actions in order follows:
* grok was deregistered
* grok much later published a public message with text "grok was always a
player" at 17:04:46 UTC on Friday, January 28th
* grok quickly after tried to amend that text ("action") to read "RWO:
grok was always a player"
* grok called CFJ 3943: "grok is a player" and gave a gratuitous argument
* grok attempted to vote on proposals 8635, 8636, and 8637. (FOR, PRESENT,
PRESENT)
* grok submitted a Claim of Error on the Registar's weekly report, saying
"grok is a player"
* grok replies to the statement that their votes on the above proposals
didn't work with "If CFJ 3943 is TRUE, then I was a player two hours before
the Agoran decisions on adopting these proposals were initiated."
* On Tuesday, February 1st, upon being told CFJ 3943 was judged false,
grok replied "oh cool i deregister"
* On Sunday, February 6th, they replied to their earlier message including
"RWO" with "I resolve this Agoran decision. With G's objection, the
document is not ratified."
Given there were no actions taken or public messages sent by or about grok
on Februrary 5th, it is trivial to conclude grok did not register on
February 5th, earning this CFJ its judgement of FALSE.
BUT, given the CFJ has (seemingly) mistakenly been called for the wrong
day, we shall continue our analysis. Did grok register on February 6th? A
full analysis of each message e sent follows:
- The first of nine actions: grok was deregistered
grok was a player for at least a year, though not all at once. E has
voluntarily deregistered twice, both times relatively shortly after
registering. Their last deregistration, however, was on Saturday, 01 May
2021 22:43:36 UTC by Aris, without 3 objections. The deregistration appears
very clean: grok was set to inactive, and then deregistered, because they
had not sent any messages in a long time, all with proper authorization
according to the rules, which grok agreed to. As grok has not indicated
otherwise and the rules do not provide a way to unagree, it seems that grok
still agrees to abide by the rules.
- The second: grok sent a public message with text "grok was always a
player"
What does this statement mean? "Was always" is a very powerful set of
words. It seems to imply that at all points before this message was sent,
grok had the status of "player", which is untrue, for all players. Every
player was at one point not a player, until they registered, which seems to
be relevant here. Assuming grok meant to not lie, this could instead mean
"grok was always a player since eir last registration" which may match what
grok believes, but the fact grok later (seemingly) tried to ratify this
statement implies it was up for some debate, along with the needing to send
the message at all. Why did grok say this? It seems to be to call attention
to grok's status as either player or not.
Does this message indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
that grok intended to become a player at that time?
No, considering this message alone. It is just a statement that may be true
or false, that does not indicate any intents. There is no "I do" or "I
intend to", only an indication of what grok may have thought e was, which,
if anything, would mean e did not have to register if e was already a
player.
BUT, can we consider other messsages along with this one, specifically the
one trying to amend this message?
No, not yet. It is unreasonable to let future messages affect current
messages, especially considering ambiguity about which messages affect or
rely on others instead of standing alone. If we were to let the meanings of
past messages be affected retroactively, retroactive registrations could
probably break the gamestate. Not to mention, "an unregistered person CAN
register by publishing a message", not multiple messages. Although, given
"message" isn't defined by the rulset, it could hypothetically be contained
by multiple public messages, as a single "message" could be communicated
over multiple e-mails. Thus we shall consider the possibility, for the
purposes of registering, but only non-retroactively.
- The third: grok tried to amend the previous message to read "RWO: grok is
always a player"
It is worth nothing that this message was sent a bit less than 5 minutes
after the previous one. This ammendment attempt failed as, by precedent and
reasonability, you cannot change what a previous message has said without
disastrous implications for the game. But the intent was still reasonably
clear here: grok wanted to amend a message to read as something else, an
intent which may have some bearing on the next question. Was an action
tabled? No.
A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an
intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously
and without obfuscation specifying the action, the method
(including non- default parameter values), and optionally,
conditions.
"By announcement" means "specifying the action and setting forth intent to
perform that action by sending [a public] message, doing both clearly and
unambiguously." Given the split nature of this "message" into a statement
and a tried ammendment to an action, the failure of the ammendment, and
ambiguity of whether grok actually wanted this multi-part series to
succeed, as clearly they could have just included the RWO in their original
message, this an action utterly failed to be tabled. It was unclear and
ambiguous which email the RWO was meant to be or actually intended in,
obfuscated by the splitting into multiple emails, the first of which
indicated no connection to the second, and inconscpicuous, as the email did
not purport to intend anything. That being said:
Does this message indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
that grok intended to become a player at that time?
No, considering the message alone. It rather ambiguously makes an attempt
at an ammendment, or even a RWO, which in either case wouldn't lead grok
becoming a player at that time. If e wanted to do that, e could have just
said e registered. At the very best, this message is an ambiguous and
unclear intent to become a player later, because nothing about becoming a
player was stated, only weakly implied by the attempt at ratification,
which e may or may not have known would fail. The same holds considering
the previous message, as it only serves as something that grok may want to
be amended or ratified. Now that we're considerring previous messages, it's
worth noting that public messages from grok far in the past before this
case should be discounted as it would be unreasonable effort to include
those in interpretting the meaning of recent messages.
- The fourth: grok called CFJ 3943: "grok is a player" and gave a
gratuitous argument
The message in question reads:
records saved
>
> CFJ: grok is a player
>
>
> gratuitous arg: ratifying a public document is a reserved action that
> can only be done by players. grok was automatically deregistered by
> inactivity and never revoked eir consent from agora. because grok's
> consent has been given and has not been revoked, and e attempted to
> take a game action, e must be registered at the time e attempted this
> action. therefore, grok registered at 17:05 utc on friday, january 28.
>
No ambiguity here: grok called this cfj and published an argument to uphold
the relevant statement. Though there are a few strange things: grok
registered at 17:04:46 UTC on Friday, January 28th, not at 17:05. This
renders the provided argument invalid, but that could be by accident. The
actual arguments, however, are more purposeful. It tries to connect the
facts grok gave eir consent to Agora and attempted to take a game action to
an unrelated conclusion, that e must be registered at the time e attempted
that action; it gives no go-between, no reason for this argument to
logically follow. Could grok have purposefully constructed a bad argument?
Does it matter?
Does this message indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
that grok intended to become a player at that time?
"Yeah sure why not, they called a cfj which could make them a player, thats
clear enough." Emphasis on COULD. grok may not have intended this cfj to be
judged true. The only potential indication is the gratuitous arg: it may be
reasonable to assume that argument for grok being a player could imply e
wanted the cfj to make em a player, but even that is ambiguous given the
argument's typo that makes it invalid, not to mention grok's surrounding
obfuscating messages and the potential for faking.
ANYWAYS I AM TIRED, TO BE CONTINUED
--
secretsnail
