Will type up my judgement later when I'm actually at home, but I am fairly 
certain that the correct judgements are as follows:

CFJ 3722 - TRUE.
CFJ 3723 - FALSE.
CFJ 3724 - FALSE.

Aris, I believe that Proposal 8164 has become undistributed, so could you 
please attempt to distribute it once more as soon as possible, to minimise the 
time until it can take effect? (If I'm wrong, then the worst that can happen is 
that your action is INEFFECTIVE.)

-twg


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:20 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I submit to the Referee the following linked CFJs, and I suggest that they 
> all should be assigned to the same Judge:
>
> 1.  “It was POSSIBLE for D. Margaux acting on behalf of ATMunn to issue a 
> Cabinet Order of Manifesto in the message quoted below.”
> 2.  “The Assessor currently CAN and MAY resolve an Agoran Decision whether to 
> adopt Proposal 8164 to be ADOPTED.”
> 3.  “An Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 was initiated and its 
> outcome is ADOPTED.”
>
> Caller’s Arguments:
>
> The judgements for at least one (and maybe all) of these CFJs should be 
> PARADOXICAL.
>
> A few weeks back, ATMunn was indisputably Prime Minister and Gaelan attempted 
> to win by apathy. Gaelan’s attempted win would have been successful except 
> that without-objection intents were broken at that time. Shortly thereafter, 
> I published an intent to appoint Gaelan specifically to be Speaker (it was 
> not a general “appoint a speaker” intent; I specifically said I intended to 
> appoint Gaelan). Then I attempted to execute that intent and deputise for 
> Prime Minister to do so. That deputisation would be EFFECTIVE if Gaelan had 
> won by apathy and had been laureled. As a result, if intents are fixed 
> retroactively, then Gaelan was retroactively laureled and my deputisation 
> succeeded in installing me as Prime Minister retroactively.
>
> After I attempted that deputisation, I next acted on behalf of ATMunn to 
> attempt to distribute by Manifesto a proposal to fix dependent actions 
> retroactively. I believe a quorum attempted to vote FOR and no one attempted 
> to vote AGAINST.
>
> Soooooo.... I think that the Assessor can’t resolve this proposal without 
> resulting in a PARADOX.
>
> To put it another way:
>
> [1] If dependent actions are NOT fixed retroactively, then ATMunn was Prime 
> Minister at the time of the below message and the attempted distribution of 
> Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE;
>
> [2] If the distribution of Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE, then in a timely 
> fashion the Assessor CAN and MUST resolve it to be ADOPTED;
>
> [3] If the Assessor resolves Proposal 8164 ADOPTED, then that retroactively 
> fixes dependent actions, thereby making me Prime Minister retroactively at 
> the time of the attempted distribution of Proposal 8164;
>
> [4] If I was Prime Minister at the time of the attempted distribution of 
> Proposal 8164, then the attempted distribution by me-acting-as-ATMunn was 
> INEFFECTIVE, the proposal was never properly distributed, and therefore the 
> Assessor CANNOT and MUST NOT resolve it to be ADOPTED (and a CoE to challenge 
> a purported ADOPTION would be proper and would prevent ratification);
>
> [5] If Proposal 8164 is not ADOPTED, then dependent actions are NOT fixed 
> retroactively;
>
> [6] Return to step 1 above and repeat.
>
> Sorry all!
>
> I think we can fix this by a proposal that retroactively-retroactively-fixes 
> the gamestate. But in the meantime, I think these CFJs are PARADOXICAL...?
>
> > On Feb 27, 2019, at 8:34 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue the 
> > Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the below proposal, initiating the 
> > Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal 
> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 
> > 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and 
> > AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes).
> > Proposal ID: 8164
> > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.4
> > Author: Falsifian
> > Co-authors: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg
> > Adoption Index: 3.1
> > Text:
> > The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have
> > been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined
> > whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted after Proposal
> > 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the
> > extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.
> > Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following:
> >
> >      A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
> >      entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
> >      "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
> >      intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
> >      posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
> >      that intent.
> >
> >      The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
> >      an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
> >      the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
> >      previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
> >      not eligible to support it.
> >
> >      Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> >      unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> >      1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
> >         are at least N Objectors to that intent.
> >
> >      2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> >         fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
> >
> >      3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
> >         number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
> >         times the number of Objectors to the intent.
> >
> >      The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
> >      an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
> >      the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> >
> >      The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
> >      if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
> >
> >      A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
> >      before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
> >      type of response.
> >
> >
> > --
> > D. Margaux


Reply via email to