Also, please take Gaelan off the list On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links > goes right to spam. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> wrote: >> COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report for TODO date) >> >> Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. >> Information in this report is not self-ratifying. >> >> >> Open cases (CFJs) >> ----------------- >> 3643 called by ais523 18 June 2018, assigned to Gaelan 24 June 2018: "In >> the above-quoted message, Corona published a self-ratifying report." >> >> 3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to PSS 24 June 2018: "G. has >> satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR." >> >> 3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to ATMunn 24 June 2018: "The >> fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is >> unforgivable for the purposes of R2559." >> >> 3649 called by Kenyon 29 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 1 July 2018: >> "At the time this CFJ was initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta >> Ribbon." >> >> Highest numbered case: 3649 >> >> Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report. >> >> >> Recently-delivered verdicts and implications >> -------------------------------------------- >> 3642 called by Aris 15 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 25 June 2018: >> "Proposal 8050 has been resolved." Attempted resolution was sent to >> agora-official, but was ineffective because most players didn't receive >> it (their subscriptions were lost due to mail server errors). >> >> 3644 called by PSS 18 June 2018, judged TRUE by G. 1 July 2018: "Corona >> issued a humiliating public reminder in the below quoted text." Players >> can't guarantee actual humiliation, thus clear indication that >> humiliation might be a thing is sufficient. >> >> 3646 called by Corona 23 June 2018, judged TRUE by V.J. Rada 24 June >> 2018, corrected to FALSE 26 June 2018: "My conditional vote in the >> appended message evaluates to FOR each proposal." Ineffective due to >> the ambiguity from CFJ 3647 (see below). >> >> 3647 called by ATMunn 24 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 26 June 2018: >> "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053." >> Ineffective due to ambiguity. >> >> >> Day Court Judge Recent >> ------------------------------ >> Corona 3627, 3628, 3641 >> [02/14 02/14 06/17] >> Murphy 3626, 3627, 3628 >> [03/01 03/01 03/01] >> G. 3631, 3637, 3636, 3644 >> [04/20 04/30 05/04 06/24] >> Gaelan 3638, 3643 >> [06/04 06/24] >> V.J. Rada 3640, 3646, 3649 >> [06/17 06/24 07/01] >> PSS 3645, 3647 >> [06/24 06/24] >> >> Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases) >> ------------------------------ >> ATMunn 3633, 3648 >> [04/29 06/24] >> >> (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court >> will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will >> generally be honored, even for non-court judges.) >> >> >> Context/arguments/evidence >> -------------------------- >> >> *** 3642 caller Aris's arguments: >> >> Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to >> receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken >> therein as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's >> also set never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my >> technical domain of control. >> >> *** 3642 G.'s gratuitous evidence: >> >> The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the list >> reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers below in >> case it helps interpret anything: >> >> Return-Path: <agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org> >> Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora; >> Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) >> Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18]) >> by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id >> w5EImGAx024904 >> for <ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16 >> -0700 >> Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223]) >> by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id >> w5EIm5nl013556 >> for <ke...@u.washington.edu>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700 >> Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -0000 >> Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1) >> by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 -0000 >> Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org >> Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -0000 >> Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139) >> by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 -0000 >> Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163]) >> by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id >> w5EIlNUY013073 >> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) >> for <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 >> X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu >> [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm) >> by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id >> w5EIlNOo032150 >> (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) >> for <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 >> X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu >> X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP; >> Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT >> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> >> To: Agora Official <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> >> Message-ID: <alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu> >> User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20) >> MIME-Version: 1.0 >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT >> X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: >> 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data: >> 2018.4.20.5491003 >> X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu >> X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIII, Probability=8%, Report= >> REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05, >> BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0, >> NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0, >> NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0, >> SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, >> __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0, >> __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM 0, >> __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0, >> __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0, >> __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0, >> __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, >> __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0, >> __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, >> __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME 0, >> __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0, >> __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0 >> Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052 >> X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org >> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 >> Precedence: list >> List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. \(PF\)" <agora-official.agoranomic.org> >> List-Unsubscribe: >> <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>, >> <mailto:agora-official-requ...@agoranomic.org?subject=unsubscribe> >> List-Archive: >> <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/> >> List-Post: <mailto:agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> >> List-Help: <mailto:agora-official-requ...@agoranomic.org?subject=help> >> List-Subscribe: >> <http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-official>, >> <mailto:agora-official-requ...@agoranomic.org?subject=subscribe> >> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org >> Errors-To: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org >> Sender: "agora-official" <agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org> >> X-Sophos-SenderHistory: >> ip=71.19.146.223,fs=117188,da=5528554,mc=8,sc=0,hc=8,sp=0,fso=5001784,re=1,sd=4,hd=8 >> >> >> I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows. >> Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals. >> >> [Remainder of message cut] >> >> *** 3642 judge PSS's arguments: >> >> The case before the court today raises a question of fact and a >> complex and multi-part question of the law. The question of fact asks >> what occurred to cause The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, >> The Assessor G.'s resolutions of proposals 8050-8052 to not be >> received by The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris and others. The >> question of law asks what legal effects these occurrences had on the >> adoption of proposal 8050. First, I will establish the facts and >> address the question of fact, before proceeding to the question of >> law. >> >> At the time of calling the CFJ, two attempts had been made by The >> Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Assessor G. to resolve >> proposal 8050. Both of these attempts were made by sending an email to >> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org, a public forum, according to the >> Registrar's Report of June 12, 2018. Neither of these attempts were >> received by The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris. As gratuitous >> evidence, The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Assessor >> G. provided the headers of the first of these two attempts for >> analysis by the court. At the request of the court, The Right Heroic, >> Victorious, and Honourable G. provided the headers of the Registrar's >> Report of June 12, 2018, for comparison. Through both manual analysis >> and text difference comparison, the court has found no meaningful >> difference between the headers of the two emails, provided for >> comparison. As a result of not finding a cause from analysis of the >> headers, the court sought server logs from The Victorious and Right >> Honourable, The Distributor omd. The Victorious and Right Honourable, >> The Distributor omd was unable to provide the sought logs, as a result >> of the settings on the server. However, in eir place, The Victorious >> and Right Honourable, The Distributor omd provided a report outlining >> the problem. According to the report, a Python script had caused >> corruption of the configuration file for >> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org, therefore causing the server to revert >> to the configuration file from 2013. This caused The Victorious and >> Honourable caller Aris and all other persons who had signed up to >> receive mail from agora-offic...@agoranomic.org after 2013 to have >> their subscriptions cancelled. These facts seem to fully explain why >> the the attempts to resolve proposals 8050-8052 were not received by >> The Victorious and Honourable Aris and others. As no other >> explanations have been put forth and no objections to these facts have >> been heard, the court takes these facts as absolute and resolved. >> >> The court having established the facts of the matter before it, the >> court proceeds to consideration of the question of law. The Victorious >> and Honourable caller Aris argues that CFJ 1905 states, "non-receipt >> of a message by those who have arraigned [sic.] to receive messages >> via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken therein as invalid." >> The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris goes further stating that e >> does not believe that the message enters eir technical domain of >> control. The facts, resolved above, support the assertion that the >> message never entered air technical domain of control. In CFJ 1905, >> The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and Honourable Murphy found >> that for a message to fulfill the requirement of Rule 478 that it be >> "sent via a Public Forum", it must "re-send the message to a >> reasonably large subset of the set of all person who have reasonably >> arranged to receive messages via the public forum." The problem that >> arises here is whether the set of people subscribed in 2013, who would >> have received The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The >> Assessor G.'s message is a "reasonably large subset" of those who had >> arranged to receive messages via the public forum now. For the >> purposes of this determination, it serves the game best, if a priority >> is placed on reception by players and those others who might >> reasonably be expected to respond to or engage with the message, >> therefore the court now determines that additionally the subset of >> "the set of all person who have reasonably arranged to receive >> messages via the public forum" who did not receive the message and the >> effects that non-reception had should also be considered. In this >> instance, the subset who did not receive the message would be >> substantial, as a substantial portion of the current player base has >> registered or begun engagement from their current email addresses >> since 2013 and in consideration of the effects of non-reception, the >> court observes that many players attempted to take actions which would >> be rendered IMPOSSIBLE by the message that they did not receive. Thus, >> under the three standards that the court has considered, the court >> finds that the messages sent by The Right Heroic, Victorious, and >> Honourable, The Assessor G. were not public, as they did not fulfill >> the requirement of being "sent via a Public Forum", therefore the >> court finds the statement, "Proposal 8050 has been resolved." to be >> FALSE. However, the court also observes other precedents that relate >> to this CFJ and addresses them below. >> >> The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and Honourable Murphy >> overturned the precedent of CFJ 1314 in eir judgement of CFJ 1905. The >> court now agrees with The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and >> Honourable Murphy in eir overturning of CFJ 1314 because CFJ 1314 >> would allow messages to take effect without being "sent via a Public >> Forum", under the tests outlined above. >> >> In CFJ 866, The Victorious Oerjan held that a message should be >> interpreted as having been received at the time that it enters the >> recipient's technical domain of control. The court views this as an >> appropriate assessment. As an extension of this, the court finds that >> "receiving a message" should be interpreted synonymously with "a >> message entering one's technical domain of control". However, the >> court is also aware that intentional measures could be taken in bad >> faith to cause messages to be hard to find, such as making a message >> appear as spam. The court notes that if such actions are taken, the >> message may not have been received, even if it has entered one's >> technical domain of control. Additionally, such actions could be >> construed as a violation of Rule 478, as such an action would create a >> technical obstacle to participation in the forum. >> >> In CFJ 1646, The Victorious and Right Honourable Taral found that a >> message should be construed as effective when one sends it. The court >> finds now that such a precedent is problematic, as exhibited in the >> case of CFJ 2058, discussed below. As a result, the court finds that a >> message should be considered effective when it has been "sent via a >> Public Forum", according to the tests outlined above, or has been >> received by all of its intended recipients, if sent under the clause >> that reads "sent to all players and containing a clear designation of >> intent to be public." The standard is intentionally more stringent >> under the second clause as it is a less well protected method. Rule >> 478 states, "Any action performed by sending a message is performed at >> the time date-stamped on that message." This is interpreted to refer >> to that time at which it is sent from the mailing list to the >> individual recipients, unless a significant, irregular, and >> game-changing delay occurred between this and its reception. However, >> such delays are rare and thus the difference is normally minute and >> insignificant, but the court does recommend an amendment to Rule 478 >> to make such a distinction clear. >> >> In CFJ 2058, The Honourable cmealerjr raised the question of the >> potentially non-trivial time difference discussed above, but did not >> address or attempt to resolve it. However, the court notes its >> disagreement with The Victorious and Elusive Quazie, who found in eir >> original judgement, prior to appeal that a message is published when >> it leaves the sender's technical domain of control. The court now >> holds that it is published when it becomes public under those tests >> and standards held above. >> >> In CFJ 813, The Honourable Coco recognized that not all players may be >> subscribed to the public forum. The court appreciates this recognition >> and notes that no part of this decision should be construed to require >> reception by non-subscribers, unless the non-subscriber is a member of >> the "set of all person who have reasonably arranged to receive >> messages via the public forum", for a message to be considered public >> under the clause that reads "sent via a public forum". >> >> Finally, the court notes that The Victorious and Right Honourable, The >> Distributor omd did not establish technological obstacles, as >> disallowed by Rule 478, something occurred that causes such >> technological obstacles to exist. In this noting, the court reminds >> future judges that technical obstacles can occur without a violation >> of Rule 478 occurring. The court notes that when such technological >> obstacles have been erected or have come to exist, judges should give >> the benefit of the doubt to those for whom the obstacles have been >> erected. >> >> The court thanks the The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris for >> calling the case and The Right Heroic, Victorious, Learned, and >> Honourable, The Arbitor Murphy for assigning the case. Additionally, >> the court thanks The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable G. and >> The Victorious and Right Honourable, The Distributor omd for their >> assistance and cooperation in collecting and analyzing evidence around >> the case. >> >> References and Evidence: >> CFJ 2058 >> CFJ 1905 >> CFJ 1646 >> CFJ 1314 >> CFJ 866 >> CFJ 813 >> Rule 478 >> The Victorious and Honourable caller Aris's arguments >> Headers from the first email under question, as provided by The Right >> Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Assessor G. >> Headers from the Registrar's Report of June 12, 2018, as provided by >> The Right Heroic, Victorious, and Honourable, The Registrar G. >> Report from The Victorious and Right Honourable, The Distributor omd >> Registrar's Report of June 12, 2018 >> >> *** 3643 caller ais523's evidence, quoting Corona: >> >> This report is intentionally false, with the sole deviation from >> reality being re-ratifying the items generated >> in facilities on June 4, which have been accidentaly ratified out of >> existence by the last report. >> >> *** 3643 caller ais523's arguments: >> >> Precedent says that a disclaimer stating that the content of >> a message is false is enough to prevent it taking actions by >> announcement. Is the same true of self-ratifying reports? >> >> See CFJs 1971 (particularly relevant), 2069, 2830, 3000 for more >> information. (Information about these CFJs is available at >> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/>). >> >> *** 3644 caller PSS's evidence, quoting Corona: >> >> I issue a humiliating public reminder to the following persons for not >> voting on the current Medals of Honour decision: >> >> Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Corona, VJ Rada, Kenyon, Ouri, twg, >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, omd, o, Quazie, pokes, ????Telnaior >> >> (Not really though, if you don't feel like either candidate deserves a >> medal, then just don't vote and I'll fail it) >> >> *** 3644 caller PSS's arguments: >> >> I bring the attention of the Honourable Judge to CFJ 3585, which found >> that no creativity was required and that Orjan's (I'm sorry I am unable >> to type your name correctly on this computer) observation that it was >> not very humiliating did not impact the fulfillment of the obligation. >> However, I ask that the Honourable Judge observe that in that instance >> no messages explicitly suggesting that one should not feel humiliated >> were communicated, but in this instance, a message explicitly reassuring >> that true humiliation was not intended explicitly appears at the bottom >> of the message. >> >> *** 3644 judge G.'s arguments: >> >> In general, a message doesn't automatically gain a quality because a >> person says it does (that's the long-standing Agoran philosophy that "I >> say it is" doesn't equate to "It is"). For example, as a lowest bar, >> it's hard to claim "The following is a humiliating message: have a nice >> day" is actually humiliating to anyone. >> >> However, for "humiliation", the question is "humiliating to whom?" >> Shame is an emotion, and it's not possible for the sender of a message >> to guarantee that anything that they could say would make the recipient >> feel shame for a particular failure. In the context of voting in >> particular, if I really meant to vote on something and forgot, then a >> simple "hey, you forgot to vote" (without mentioning humiliation) might >> make me feel bad because I really meant to vote. On the other hand, >> allowing a vote to fail quorum is a valid legislative tactic. If I'm >> using that tactic on purpose by not voting, no amount of "you should >> feel humiliated/ashamed" would actually accomplish the trick of making >> me feel bad. >> >> And even for the "have a nice day" example: I was annoyed and snippy at >> a retail clerk for some dumb reason recently. They were very nice in >> spite of that and said "have a nice day sir" when the transaction was >> done, and it made me feel bad (and a bit humiliated) for being a jerk. >> Context is everything. >> >> So for the purposes of R2168, the actual phraseology (including >> disclaimers!) doesn't matter. As long as the message conveys that, by >> R2168, the non-voters SHOULD generally reflect on whether their actions >> are for the good of the game (via announcing that the message is >> technically meant to flag behavior that *might* be shameful), it counts, >> even with disclaimers. This is as low a bar as we can reasonably set, >> and it's very low and borders on "I say it is therefore it is", but the >> alternative is trying to legislate/control how people should feel about >> something, which isn't at all reasonable. I find TRUE. >> >> *** 3645 caller Aris's evidence, quoting G.: >> >> The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including >> revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule): >> >> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt >> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt >> >> I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size- >> limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of >> ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case >> the rulesets bounce from BUS. >> >> *** 3645 caller Aris's arguments, responding to ais523: >> >>> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to >>> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a >>> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL >>> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different. >>> >>> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't >>> it's probably because of your disclaimer. >> >> I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose. >> A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they >> want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as >> the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required >> information. >> >> *** 3645 G.'s gratuitous arguments: >> >> Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the >> link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen >> it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the >> only evidence. >> >> I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could >> cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. >> >> Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means >> actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases >> that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions, >> where outside references work because the specification is like this: >> "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it" >> >> for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual >> announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that >> has a clear specification. >> >> So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because >> e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an >> announced verb/context doesn't do the trick. >> >> There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub) >> without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the >> link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links) >> would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication >> timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence). >> >> The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a >> typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message >> and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct >> one. >> (this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if >> the matter is otherwise unclear). >> >> I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum, I'm >> not >> opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the >> Now, >> and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail >> archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to >> know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't >> know about that would make it easier. >> >> *** 3646 caller Corona's evidence: >> >> I withdraw my vote on these proposals. >> >> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical >> alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never >> sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not >> containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next >> instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes >> place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the >> same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these >> proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals. >> >> *** 3646 caller Corona's arguments: >> >> while this contains a conditional referring a >> hypothetical future situation, that situation is not indeterminate, as I >> specified "in the next instant, before any other process regulated by the >> ruleset of Agora takes place", meaning it can be unambiguously logically >> derived from the present situation (that is, the present situation - my >> first message and the withdrawal + my second message = the hypothetical >> future situation). >> >> *** 3646 ais523's gratuitous arguments: >> >> Agora does not have infinitely many players, nor >> is it reasonable to believe that it could have infinitely many players >> without a change to the rules. >> >> If other people are doing the same thing as you, then they're making >> the same conditional, and at some point the conditional will talk about >> an event that can't possibly occur (someone else voting) and thus fail >> to evaluate. I think that makes the whole thing collapse. >> >> *** 3646 judge V.J. Rada's arguments: >> >> The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR >> each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I >> hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to >> vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous >> voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the >> same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five >> previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not >> ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading >> carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each >> proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition >> depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules >> processes. >> >> This CFJ is TRUE >> >> *** 3646 judge V.J. Rada's re-judgement: >> >> When judging 3646, I forgot that it was at the time reliant on CFJ >> 3647 being judged TRUE. Now that it has been judged as FALSE, and >> ATMunn did not in fact vote FOR, I file a motion to reconsider CFJ >> 3646 and judge it FALSE. >> >> *** 3647 caller ATMunn quoting twg: >> >> Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than >> that. I don't think "I do the same thing as the last X people in >> this thread" necessarily implies "I do the same thing as the last X >> people in this thread _did in this thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I >> have all previously performed actions other than voting on these >> proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too ambiguous to >> distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue >> neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five >> proposals. >> >> *** 3647 Corona's gratuitous arguments: >> >> You need to "publish a notice" to vote. R478/Fora >> says: >> >> 'A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all >> players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. [...] A >> person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.' >> >> The message does not need to be sent to all players, it merely needs to be >> sent via a public forum, and presumably it doesn't need to be received by >> all players (excerpt from the same rule): >> >> 'Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.' >> >> Clearly, the _receiving_ player is responsible for making sure e can >> receive messages, not the sender or the Registrar. >> >> *** 3647 judge PSS's arguments: >> >> The case before the court today raises only a question of law. The >> case asks specifically whether The Honourable ATMunn's vote evaluates >> to FOR, but generally whether shorthands are effective in taking >> actions. In CFJ 3523, The Victorious and Honourable Aris addressed a >> related question. In CFJ 3523, the court was faced with a question of >> whether a statement, such as "i sent this to the wrong place" would >> have the effect of taking those actions that appeared in a quoted >> message. The Victorious and Honourable Aris, in recognition of >> existing and well-established shorthands, found that it was effective >> because it was unambigous and could not be reasonably misunderstood in >> the context. The court believes that this same standard would >> logically extend to explicit shorthands, such as that before the court >> today. Additionally, game custom supports this. Shorthands, such as "I >> do the same" or "I do the opposite" have often been accepted without >> question. >> >> Now, the court must consider whether The Honourable ATMunn's vote >> fulfilled the standard found above. The court finds that it does not >> because the vote remains ambiguous as to whether the caster is voting >> as the previous voters have done at the time of casting or the caster >> is casting a conditional vote that will evaluate to whatever the vote >> of the previous voters is at the time of resolution, therefore the >> court judges the statement "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn >> voted FOR proposal 8053." FALSE. >> >> References and Evidence: >> Discussion of CFJ 3646 between The Honourable twg and The Victorious and >> Right Learned ais523 >> CFJ 3523 >> >> *** 3648 caller G.'s evidence: >> >> Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT): >>> I impose summary judgement as follows: I levy a fine of 2 Blots on >>> Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely >>> fashion after June 1 (R2495). >> >> *** 3648 caller G.'s arguments: >> >> R2559 reads in part: >>> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or >>> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were >>> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time, >>> the following assets are created in the possession of that >>> player: >> >> "Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset. The definition >> is by inference in R2557: >>> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the >>> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, >>> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology. >> which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable. >> >> However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice >> as per an investigation of a finger-pointing. The fine in question >> was levied using R2479: >>> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose >>> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine >>> of up to 2 blots on em. >> which does not mention any notion of forgiveness. >> >> There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct: >> 1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable. >> 2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the >> concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable. >> >> FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the >> fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as >> forgivable. >> >> After reading Rules a few more times, I think this is answered by this >> clause in R2479: >>> Summary Judgement is imposed on the >>> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official >>> proceeding. >> I think the Finger -> Investigation -> Forgiveness is an "official >> proceeding", and since summary judgement is explicitly stated to be >> outside of that, any resulting penalties are neither forgivable or >> unforgivable. >> >> *** 3649 caller Kenyon's zombie master twg's arguments: >> >> If it is possible, I act on behalf of Kenyon to publicly acknowledge >> that today is Agora's Birthday. >> >> I act on behalf of Kenyon to initiate a CFJ: "At the time this CFJ was >> initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta Ribbon." >> >> I think it's common sense that "publicly acknowledging" something means >> stating it in a public message, which it's not possible to do on behalf >> of someone else, so this should be FALSE. But on the other hand, the >> action of "publicly acknowledging" something doesn't appear to be >> defined or referenced anywhere else in the rules, and past assumption >> seems to have been that any action can be taken on behalf of a zombie >> unless it's specifically prohibited, so I can see an argument for TRUE >> as well. Anyone else have opinions? >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
-- >From V.J. Rada
