On 5/26/23 13:46, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 9:03 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> 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] >>> >>> >> ========================================================================== >> [draft] > > Thanks Janet for providing more detail and expectations from this case! > Hopefully the below reasoning can be found sufficient enough to submit as > the resolution to the case itself. > > Evidence: > 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. > > 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. > > Rule 2125/13 (Power=3) > Regulated Actions > > An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or > permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances > under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action > would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some > player is required to be a recordkeepor. > > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the > Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be > interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. > > The controversy, specifically, is whether a player can consent to a > non-action. > Specifically "A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that > player is consenting to it." > > Let's break down the statement: "A Rice Plan has an active player's > Signature as long as that player is consenting to it." What is "it" in this > situation? Is "it" an action or non-action? > This can be read a few ways: the first way is that "it" is "that Rice > Plan." This would result in a weird case where a player consents to a > non-action (an asset). In real life, we do not consent to non-actions, so > I'm thinking that this is unreasonable to assume. > The second way is that "it" is "that Rice Plan having that player's > Signature." This makes more sense: an asset obtaining a property is an > action. Being reasonable Agorans, I find that this reading is more > appropriate. This also makes sense in the context of the rules: rule 2519 > provides a definition for consent we can apply to this situation.
Rice Plans are not asset. I disagree with this construction of "it". To me, "it" clearly refers to the Rice Plan. If the author meant the consent to refer to "having eir Signature on it", e could have written "as long as that player so consents" or "as long as that player consents to that state of affairs". Even if it doesn't refer to the plan, "having one's signature on a Rice Plan" is a continuous property. "One's signature being placed on a Rice Plan" is an action, but is contradictory with the clearly intended continuous evaluation. > Now, it is sufficient to determine whether "that Rice Plan having that > player's Signature" is an action or not. I'd say that it is a regulated > action, fitting all three criteria for regulated actions: the rules have > said how it occurs, whether it succeeds, and it affects gamestate the > Ricemastor must track. Again, it's not an action, it's a property or a state of affairs. > Finally, given the context of the controversy, and the CFJ itself, I have > to determine all the other factors that contribute to whether players have > rice. Given the context of the controversy as the reason to call the CFJ, I > find it sufficient to say that the ricemastor has taken appropriate > precautions otherwise to determine the amounts of rice players have: the > creation of rice plans, and tracking the consent of rice plans as per rule > 2519, harvests, and eir most recent report shows that players have rice. So > without further evidence or controversy, I trust the officer to have done > eir job. And, again, this doesn't actually resolve the controversy. "Whatever the officer thinks" is not a legal standard for communicating "consent". Additionally, nothing in the text suggests that there's officer discretion here. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
