On 5/26/23 12:01, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 4:37 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> [Apologies for not waiting for more input from the Caller, but if I
>> don't assign this now it may be nearly a week before I can. Hopefully
>> Yachay can still provide something timely, or Judge 4st has some
>> knowledge of the controversy.]
>>
>> The below CFJ is 4032. I assign it to 4st.
>>
>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4032
>>
>> =============================== CFJ 4032 ===============================
>>
>> There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice.
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>>
>> Caller: Yachay
>>
>> Judge: 4st
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>>
>> History:
>>
>> Called by Yachay: 25 May 2023 19:17:23
>> Assigned to 4st: [now]
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>>
>> Caller's Arguments:
>>
>> [none provided so far]
>>
>> ==========================================================================
>>
> Ugh, let's get started without evidence.
> The rule in question:
> Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
> The Rice Game
>
> The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
> Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
> players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
> if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
> Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
> Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
> consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
> has created by announcement.
>
> A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
> - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
> Rice Plan is Harvested.
> - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures,
> the one that was created earliest is Harvested.
> - In all other cases, nothing happens.
> And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
>
> Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having
> no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these
> lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list.
> When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice
> Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each
> player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then
> e lose 1 Rice.
>
> If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2
> Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins
> the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in
> this manner three times, this rule repeals itself.
>
> So basically the controversy isn't about whether a harvest happened: a
> harvest DID happen.
> The controversy is over consent and signatures, and what is considered
> consent.
>
> Without evidence (to the contrary or otherwise) that a player or player(s)
> have or have not consented to rice plans, it seems reasonable that the
> ricemastor has taken sufficient precaution and effort to determine what is
> consent based on the natural meaning of the word and or the rule-based
> meaning of the word, whichever is in use at play here. Thus, I judge this
> to trivially be TRUE.
>
> Given that the ricemastor was the one who brought this case to light,
> without evidence, hopefully this is sufficient detail on the case.
> Otherwise, this is a draft that will come to be the ruling I deploy
> sometime, so be sure to submit any evidence now while I have time to judge
> it, OR FOREVER HODL YOUR PEACE.
>
The dispute is over what "consent" to a non-action means, in light of
R2519/2:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
Consent
A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
at the time the action took place:
1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
unambiguously indicates eir consent;
3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
take place or assented to it taking place.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I request the judge to actually conduct a legal analysis of the
situation, rather than just "the officer is probably right". It is
entirely possible that given this (power 3!) definition, it is
impossible to "consent" to a non-action, so no rice plan could have been
harvested.
Sure, it's possible that "consent" takes on its natural meaning here,
but it's not at all obvious if that is the case. And, if it does, what
exactly is the communication standard for "consent"? Does it include
Agoran contracts?
I'd be surprised if both rice works and "consent" can include Agoran
contracts, given that that meaning doesn't seem to be a natural one, and
if we're using a rules-based meaning, "consent" doesn't seem applicable
at all.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
