On 8/28/13 9:08 , Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> [Doing this by hand; will set up the database when I have a few
> hours in the next few days].
>
> ============================== CFJ 3380 ==============================
>
> G.'s votes in the recent General Election were submitted before
> the voting period ended.
>
> ========================================================================
Proto-judgment:
I proto-judge CFJ 3380 FALSE.
Rule 478/30 specifies that "actions performed by sending a message" are
performed at the "time date-stamped on that message". Precedent provides us
with two options for determining which date-stamp to use:
a) the date stamp that best represents the message left its author's technical
domain of control (CFJ 1646); or
b) the date stamp that best represents when the message was actually sent to
players via a public forum (CFJ 2058 (explicitly not adopted for determining
whether rules were broken by missing deadlines));
Under interpretation (a) the timestamps appear to be (omitting day, month,
hour):
initiation: 57:40
attempted votes if G. does not control smtp.washington.edu: 57:00
attempted votes if G. does control *.washington.edu: 08:27 [*]
Now, timestamp [*] has a problem in that the timestamps used by vps.qoid.us
were clearly substantially incorrect. However, a sensible correction for this
issue, taking the next timestamp that appears "correct" still shows G.'s
message as about 3 minutes late.
Under interpretation (b) the timestamps appear to be (omitting day, month,
hour) -- using ais523's observed timestamps:
initiation: 57:48
attempted votes: 00:14
-- using the forum software's timestamps for forwarding:
initiation: 05:03
attempted votes: 08:27
Both interpretation (a) and (b) have a serious issues of verifiability. It is
difficult to determine where a person's technical domain of control ends. No
single player has full on information about when a message was effectively
sent to players.
Interpretation (b) tends to use timestamps from a consistent source, which I
believe is substantially less surprising. It also matches the game state
better with how players observe the game and should make uncertainty caused by
skewed remote clocks less common.
G. argues that interpretation (a) is required by R101's right of participation
of the forum since G. would be less capable of timing eir own messages.
However, interpretation (a) would also just as easily yield cases where
players were _more_ capable of manipulating the timing of their own messages;
for example, if the server just out of the technical domain of their control
was always a few minutes behind in time. [1] Since players can probably adjust
their mail setup to have only very nominal delays (even though G. did not have
the foresight to do so in this case), I believe interpretation (b) generally
does not leave players at a disadvantage in their right to participate in the
fora by sending messages.
Additionally, the right to participation in the fora includes not only a
sending messages but also receiving them. G's ability to have messages
considered sent before they are generally available must be counterbalanced
with other player's ability to receive messages that are considered sent.
Judge's evidence:
Rule 478/30 [excerpt]
[...] Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
(including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
in the message, unless otherwise specified.
[1] It would be reasonable to disregard such a server's timestamps, but we
would have no way of reliably detecting when to do so.
- woggle
>
> Caller: ais523
>
> Judge: woggle
> Judgement:
>
> ========================================================================
>
> History:
>
> Called by ais523: 16 Jul 2013 20:32:46 GMT
> Assigned to Murphy: 23 Jul 2013 17:06:10 GMT
> Murphy recused: 05 Aug 2013 13:20:04 GMT
> Assigned to lindar: 05 Aug 2013 13:24:49 GMT
> lindar recused: 27 Aug 2013 18:53:51 GMT
> Assigned to woggle: [As of this message]
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> More recent precedents (e.g. CFJ 2058) hinge on when the forum actually
> distributes the messages, to determine relative timing. It's hard to
> determine the moment at which the server actually sends, but comparing
> the last timestamp of vps.qoid.us (which apparently hosts the mailing
> lists) seems to make the most sense, as it's going to be closest to the
> time at which the messages are sent and probably have a reasonably
> consistent delay. That gives "9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 -0000" for the sending
> of the initiation, and "16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000" for the sending of
> the votes, meaning that the votes are late. (Note that vps.qoid.us's
> clock is wrong, with me receiving both emails "before" the mailing lists
> sent them; however, the difference between the times it states is
> presumably constant, unless its clock was adjusted in between.) This
> seems like the most reasonable claim to me, but then, I'm biased :)
>
> Older precedents use a "technical domain of control" argument. It seems
> likely that c-walker has no technical control over Google, making "09
> Jul 2013 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)" the appropriate timestamp for the
> sending. G.'s timestamp for sending would depend on the details of the
> mail setup in the University of Washington (would e have had access to,
> say, unplug the mail server before it relayed eir message?) If using the
> TDoC test, it's unclear whether G.'s message was in time, and it depends
> on both the amount of clock skew on vps.qoid.us, and which timestamp is
> treated as valid.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> Here are the Received: headers from the messages that initiated the
> election, and that resolved it (as seen from my Yahoo! account
> callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk; obviously, the last few hops will be
> different for other people, but the hops up to qoid.us will be the
> same):
>
> c-walker's initiation:
> {{{
> Received: from 127.0.0.1 (HELO vps.qoid.us) (71.19.146.223) by
> mta1033.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:57:48 +0000
> Received: (qmail 6529 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 -0000
> Received: from localhost (HELO vps.qoid.us) (127.0.0.1) by vps.qoid.us
> with
> SMTP; 9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 -0000
> Delivered-To: agn-agora-official at agoranomic.org
> Received: (qmail 6505 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2013 20:05:02 -0000
> Received: from mail-ee0-f47.google.com (74.125.83.47) by vps.qoid.us
> with
> SMTP; 9 Jul 2013 20:05:02 -0000
> Received: by mail-ee0-f47.google.com with SMTP id e49so3962749eek.6 for
> <agora-official at agoranomic.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 10.15.35.65 with SMTP id
> f41mr32187879eev.61.1373399860085;
> Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
> Received: from [192.168.1.111]
> (host86-157-209-151.range86-157.btcentralplus.com. [86.157.209.151]) by
> mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p49sm53765911eeu.2.2013.07.09.12.57.38
> for
> <agora-official at agoranomic.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA
> bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:39 -0700 (PDT)
> }}}
>
> G.'s votes:
> {{{
> Received: from 127.0.0.1 (HELO vps.qoid.us) (71.19.146.223) by
> mta1006.mail.ir2.yahoo.com with SMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:00:14 +0000
> Received: (qmail 25573 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
> Received: from localhost (HELO vps.qoid.us) (127.0.0.1) by vps.qoid.us with
> SMTP; 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
> Delivered-To: agn-agora-business at agoranomic.org
> Received: (qmail 25550 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
> Received: from mxout12.cac.washington.edu (140.142.32.167) by vps.qoid.us
> with SMTP; 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
> Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.32.205])
> by mxout12.cac.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW11.03/8.14.4+UW13.04) with ESMTP id
> r6GJv0Ek025467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
> verify=OK) for <agora-business at agoranomic.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:57:01
> -0700
> X-Auth-Received: from hymn03.u.washington.edu (hymn03.u.washington.edu
> [140.142.9.111]) (authenticated authid=mailadm) by smtp.washington.edu
> (8.14.4+UW11.03/8.14.4+UW13.02) with ESMTP id r6GJv05F015555
> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for
> <agora-business at agoranomic.org>; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:57:00 -0700
> X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.112.153] by hymn03.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
> Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:57:00 PDT
> }}}
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Evidence by Walker:
>
> Evidence: a close family member owns shares in Google.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Evidence by Machiavelli:
>
> I own 0.0000000007% of Google.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
>
> After several test messages, I've discovered that something deep in the
> bowels
> of the University of Washington (e.g. outside of my control) is imposing a
> consistent 4-minute delay in my messages, the gap appearing in the jump from
> UW
> to the listserver. This 4-minute delay is consistent to agoranomic, the
> tue.nl
> server, and the monash server, so I assume it's on "my" end, but after the
> message leaves my "personal" control - the evidence in the headers shows
> clearly that the delay is inserted *after* the message reaches the
> university's
> smtp server. Interestingly, this delay *doesn't* appear when I send messages
> from university to my gmail or work accounts. Go figure.
>
> This gap does not appear in any of the other players' headers that I spot
> checked. While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future
> play.
> However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any
> interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me at
> a severe and consistent disadvantage over other players in controlling the
> timing of my public forum posts, and thus violate my R101 right of
> participation om the fora relative to other players.
>
> The 4-minute delay is, a priori, not a substantial rights limitation in most
> situations. But in a relative sense (my ability to "participate" relative to
> other players), in this EXACT, CONCRETE, AND SPECIFIC INSTANCE, I claim that
> a
> particular interpretation would substantially limit my rights. The means of
> preserving my rights is to select the time I hit the 'send' key as the
> appropriate time stamp.
>
> Until it is otherwise legislated, this is the most consistently "fair"
> interpretation for everyone with respect to R101. While having a RANDOM
> delay that everyone has to account for may be ok, having a BIASED delay that
> favors certain players is not. It puts me at a constant disadvantage of
> having to submit things at least 1-2 minutes earlier than anyone else when
> trying to play to a race condition, which is, well, a specific limitation
> to my participation in the fora.
>
> Regardless of whatever else it covers, the R101 right of participation was
> meant to protect players from any technical capriciousness (intentional or
> unintentional) of the email medium. If it fails to protect in this case, the
> R101 participation right truly is meaningless.
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
>
> In CFJ 2901, one of my messages was delayed due to the
> list being down and it was reasonable for me to be unaware of this,
> but it was held that my right to participation was not violated
> because I could have determined the list was down and sent it by other
> means.
>
> ========================================================================
>
>
