[this judgement is sort of opposite to some past Agoran thinking, maybe it makes sense as written, discussion/motions etc. are welcome, it's an interesting one IMO].
On 8/27/2022 8:25 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/21/22 13:46, Gaelan Steele wrote: >>> On Aug 21, 2022, at 6:42 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >>> >>> The following string: >>> >>> 4a2e0736f59b691e1b9b19abcd66ac0b374e2fce06ea652336b3a9cae1e9b5ef >>> >>> Was constructed by taking the SHA256 hash of a string containing >>> the word “walnut”. >>> >>> Gaelan >>> echo "hazelnut, you fool!" | shasum -a 256 >> 4a2e0736f59b691e1b9b19abcd66ac0b374e2fce06ea652336b3a9cae1e9b5ef - >> >> I note the violation of No Faking in the quoted message. >> >> I CFJ: the infraction I committed in the quoted message has been forgiven. >> >> Arguments: At the time of the infraction, I couldn’t be established by >> a preponderance of evidence to have lied. Therefore, it was immediately >> and automatically forgiven by rule 2531/16. >> >> Gaelan > > > The above is CFJ 3990. > > I assign CFJ 3990 to G. I judge CFJ 3990 as follows: Judge's Evidence: I've confirmed that the given plaintext matches the given hash, with the minor note for posterity that 'echo' inserts a newline before hashing (if this is tested using a different platform). Judge's Arguments: Looking at this text from R2531/16: > An infraction is automatically forgiven if: > > (1) the alleged infracter can't be established by a preponderance > of the evidence to have committed the infraction In general, when the rules ask if a fact can be "established" or "determined" when evaluating a conditional, we have (through precedent/custom etc.) interpreted the situation like a textbook math puzzle: can the "typical" Agoran reader, at the moment in time that the puzzle is set (i.e. using only information generally available to em at the time the puzzle legally arises) logically solve the puzzle with some reasonable amount of effort? This makes perfect sense when considering playability in a competitive game: in general moves (i.e.g. by-announcement moves) need to be made in such a way that most players can respond, plot countermoves, make plans etc. without having to wait for specialist interpretation, and with reasonable confidence that most people with the same facts would come to the same conclusion. Moreover, we can't allow players to "take back" past moves by supplying more information (e.g. so that saying after the fact "I didn't intend to do that" does not void the initial expression of intent, even if we sincerely believe the actor didn't intend it). And to be clear, at the moment of the alleged infraction, the "typical" Agoran did not have sufficient publicly-available information to establish guilt, if the "establishment" was performed at that moment in time with no further input, due to the plaintext of the hash being known only privately (and I assume only by Gaelan). However, it collides with the metaphor of investigation when "establish" refers to establishing "criminal" activity, wherein "evidence-gathering" and interpretation (possibly including the interpretation of motive) is necessarily after-the-fact of any alleged crime (pre-investigation being a rather chilling minority report type of thing). That collision is pretty evident in the current rules, where on one hand both investigation and forgiveness are "thoughtful" actions after the crime and evidence are gathered, which is at odds with the concept of "automatic" forgiveness as stated. Further, the existence of an "investigator" implies that the investigative process may involve ferreting around by one person (not by every 'typical' Agoran), with the investigator possibly obtaining private information during the process which is then presented as part of the findings, and in that context it is certainly not unreasonable effort to at least ask for more data as part of determining whether something "can be established", or to wait a short time to see if further information develops. Since it's not rules-text, but instead custom/precedent, that we take the "math puzzle" view of solving problems, on balance I find that the idea of "establishing based on evidence" when applied specifically to criminal matters as currently written in the rules, makes guilt-establishment based on an instant "snapshot in time" nonsensical and against common sense; moreover, we do not want to imply that gathering of evidence, determining motive, etc. are done "pre-crime". So in this instance in particular, it is not unreasonable effort (a moment after the crime was committed) to ask Gaelan to provide the plaintext (or to wait for em to volunteer it) and in fact e did, proving that e did indeed commit an infraction, and that at the moment of infraction, it was quite reasonably possible (through a short amount of waiting) to obtain the needed evidence to establish a violation to the preponderance of the evidence. I judge FALSE. -G.
