I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is interest among the players for reconsideration.
天火狐 On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider > this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a > player. Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question, > or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller > *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an > entirely different matter. If this were allowed we'd have to let judges > opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it > precedent. > > On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > > > First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged > TRUE/FALSE with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will > re-establish that > > tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment. If > there is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as > DISMISS, > > but I will follow with the rest of my judgment. > > > > Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?". I > find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such. Even giving the > > interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two > realities exist: > > Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the > barring attempt failed. > > Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established > ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my > statement > > that e is the judge of the CFJ. > > > > In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus the > CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented). > > > > To be honest, I could end the judgment here. CuddleBeam should've CFJed > on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ". That would've > > required someone to judge if the barring worked. I note to CuddleBeam: > Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super > CFJs > > are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the > question you seemed to intend to raise. But, I've got an opinion on the > matter, and > > I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say. > > > > So... let's get into the question at hand: > > > > Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ? > > > > It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave > no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had > to). > > {{{ > > (My own current understanding > > is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional > > action based on information that will only be available in the future; > > presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this > > understanding.) > > }}} > > > > The thing is, I don't see it that way. > > > > Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023 > > {{{ > > (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a > > value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a > > regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without > > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably > > available, or if it alternates instantaneously and > > indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to > > be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate. > > }}} > > > > The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an > conditional activity to happen? > > > > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially > established/enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information > gathering is left up to the > > reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold > that logic for most cases. > > > > I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at an > arbitrary date in the future. > > (e.g. "I give <PLAYER> 1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a > public forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny. That > requires an > > officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an > action for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.) > > > > I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional > action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time. > > (e.g. "I give <PLAYER> 1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out a > message with unicode characters in it". Non-rule defined deadlines are > > similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on > someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future > activity.) > > (e.g. "When the promotor distributes proposal titled `Beef, it's what's > for dinner!` I vote FOR" is invalid for similar reasons. It isn't > reasonable for > > the Assesor to start tracking votes until the voting period begins. > Once again, a non-rule obligation.) > > > > But in this case, the barring in question, I just don't see any of that > unreasonableness. > > > > Let's look at the rule shall we? > > > > {{{ > > Rule 991/17 (Power=2) > > Calls for Judgement > > > > Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement > > (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a > > statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person > > from the case. > > > > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or > > assigned exactly one judgement. > > > > The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of > > justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest > > of Agora. > > > > When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any > > player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a > > week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all > > players except the initiator and the person barred (if any). > > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. > > If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to > > judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections. > > }}} > > > > In my reading of the rule, the barring isn't resolved until a judge is > assigned, thus it's not unreasonable to ask the Arbitor to resolve a > conditional > > at that time. > > > > The conditional itself must be reasonable though. Is it reasonable to > ask the Arbitor to know who e will assign to a case? Yes, that sounds > reasonable > > to me, as it's eir job to assign judges to cases. > > > > Additionally my interpretation of the barring is 'I bar the first > eligible Player that is attempted to be assigned to this case', as any > eligible judge > > would be successfully assigned. It seems reasonable to take this > reasonable interpretation of the barring. > > > > The Arbitor isn't prescribed an exact method to eir madness, they can > assign judges however they like, BUT it does state: > > {{{ > > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. > > }}} > > and thus there must be some amount of method to the madness, and thus it > seems even more reasonable to have the Arbitor bar the first judge e was > > intending to assign to the case. > > > > I am uncertain what would've happened if the CFJ had remained unassigned > and someone had tried to assign Without 3 Objections - but thankfully I > don't > > have to have an opinion on that. As a result I wont go deeply into it, > but perhaps the first attempt at that would fail - and so it would take two > > attempts to assign a judge? I'm unsure, and wont discuss the matter > further. > > > > To Summarize: Though I have judged this CFJ, I believe that I was > ineligible to be assigned to the CFJ by the reasonableness of the barring > attempt. A > > reasonableness that comes from the fact that the barring itself isn't > resolved until judge assignment, and all the information was at hand at > that time, > > and thus no unreasonable obligations were placed on the Arbitor. > > > > If the barring attempt was sufficiently unreasonable ("I bar whoever > walked the most steps on the day this CFJ is assigned a judge") then I > would also > > state it couldn't be a proper barring attempt, but CuddleBeams barring > seems reasonable enough to me. > > > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 11:16 AM Alex Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Sun, 2017-05-21 at 05:27 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote: > > > Employing the power of Rule 991/17, I submit a Call for Judgement for > the following statement: > > > > > > "Can this statement have a Judge?" > > > > > > I also opt to bar one person from such procedure. That person is the > person > > > who would successfully become the first Judge of the Call for Judgement > > > submitted by this message. > > > > This is CFJ 3505. I assign it to Quazie. (My own current understanding > > is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional > > action based on information that will only be available in the future; > > presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this > > understanding.) > > > > See also this message: > > <http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic. > org/msg35262.html> > > > > > ---- > > > > > > I pledge to grant one Shiny (if I have at least one and I am capable of > > > such a transfer) to the Judge of the CFJ summoned via the content > above as > > > long as rules relevant to CFJs haven't changed since I have announced > this > > > pledge and the barring attempt above had barred someone. > > > > > > (I dunno, could be fun lol, and I'm very curious about how this might > turn > > > out.) > > > > -- > > ais523 > > Arbitor > > > > > > >
