Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you 
think...

-twg
===============================  CFJ 3724  ===============================

      An Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 was
      initiated and its outcome is ADOPTED.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This CFJ is the third of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to
Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3722 and CFJ 3723. This third CFJ
is extremely straightforward to resolve. Rule 955/26, "Determining the
Will of Agora", states that:

    The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and
    cannot change thereafter.

No Agoran decision about whether to adopt Proposal 8164 has been resolved,
so although two have been initiated, neither of their outcomes can
possibly have been determined, whether ADOPTED or otherwise.

I judge CFJ 3724 FALSE.

==========================================================================
===============================  CFJ 3725  ===============================

      Aris’s attempt to distribute Proposal 8164 in the message
      below was EFFECTIVE.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in the judgement to CFJ 3723, a ratification event on
2019-03-03 changed the gamestate to whatever it would have been had
Proposal 8164 not been distributed on 2019-02-28. This, of course,
includes the presence of Proposal 8164 in the Proposal Pool.

As Proposal 8164 was in the Proposal Pool at the time the H. Promotor
attempted to distribute it on 2019-03-07, this attempt was EFFECTIVE.

I judge CFJ 3725 TRUE.

==========================================================================
===============================  CFJ 3723  ===============================

      The Assessor currently CAN and MAY resolve an Agoran Decision
      whether to adopt Proposal 8164 to be ADOPTED.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This CFJ is the second of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to
Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3722 and CFJ 3724. As background
information, Agora is currently experiencing a minor crisis: new player
Falsifian discovered on 2019-02-14 that Rule 2124/23, "Agoran
Satisfaction", contains text that has unintended effects, with the result
that:

    Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it
    is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular,
    Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was
    ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent
    message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were
    ineffective.

This interpretation was confirmed by the H. Judge Trigon in CFJ 3712. As a
result, it is now known that all attempts to perform dependent actions
other than With Notice or With T Notice since the erroneous text was
introduced in Proposal 7815 on 2016-10-28 were INEFFECTIVE.

Proposal 8164 seeks to solve the problem retroactively:

    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 [such that it works as intended.]

Unfortunately, it has transpired that the method by which Proposal 8164
was distributed relies upon the failure of dependent actions. D. Margaux
asserts that this means Proposal 8164, upon taking effect, changes the
gamestate to whatever the gamestate would be had it not taken effect,
creating a paradox.



In CFJ 3722, we established that on 2019-02-28, then-Prime Minister ATMunn
issued a Cabinet Order of Manifesto, distributing Proposal 8164 and
initiating an Agoran decision about whether to adopt it. The voting period
for Agoran decisions is currently 7 days, as specified by Rule 107/20, and
indeed during the 7 days following the distribution of Proposal 8164,
several players attempted to vote on the decision.

The H. Assessor recorded these attempted votes as they were announced,
producing a preliminary tally of votes as follows:

    +----------------+-----+
    |AI              | 3.1 |
    |Quorum          |  5  |
    +----------------+-----+
    |Corona     Z 7b.|  F  |
    |D. Margaux    PM|FFFF |
    |G.              | FFF |
    |Falsifian       | FFF |
    |L.         Z 1b.|+FFF |
    |twg          4b.| FF  |
    +----------------+-----+
    |FOR             | 16  |
    |AGAINST         |  0  |
    |Ballots         |  6  |
    |Resolved        |ADOP.|
    +----------------+-----+

    Key:
    #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
    PM  Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
    Z   Zombie
    +   Extricated conditional

I believe this tally of attempted votes to be complete and accurate; and
therefore, if the Agoran decision currently exists, and if all the above
attempts to vote in it were EFFECTIVE, then clearly the Assessor now CAN
and MAY resolve it ADOPTED.



However, does the Agoran decision in question exist?

We know that ATMunn held the office of Prime Minister on 2019-02-28.
However, this is inconsistent with the Associate Director of Personnel's
weekly report of 2019-02-24, which states in part:

Office             Holder[1]  Since         Last Election   Complexity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Minister    *D. Margaux 2019-02-16    2018-11-25          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is apparent that the Associate Director of Personnel incorrectly
believed one or more of D. Margaux's attempts to deputise for Prime
Minister on 2019-02-16 to have succeeded. E was clearly aware that some
uncertainty existed, as evidenced by the following disclaimer at the top
of eir report:

    [Disclaimer: Depending on laurels, D. Margaux's message on Feb 16 may
    have installed Gaelan or D. Margaux as Speaker instead of twg.]

However, this refers only to the holder of Speaker, not the holder of
Prime Minister, and in any case, in CFJ 3643, the H. Judge V.J. Rada held
that a disclaimer attached to a self-ratifying official report does not
prevent the self-ratification of that report. Therefore, and given that
it was not doubted at any point by any player, the incorrect report
self-ratified 7 days after its publication, on 2019-03-03.



Rule 1551/19 explains very clearly what happens when a document is
ratified:

    When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
    notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
    at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
    been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
    accurate as possible; however, if the document explicitly
    specifies a different past time as being the time the document was
    true, the specified time is used to determine the minimal
    modifications. Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies
    between the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot include rule
    changes unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously
    recites either the changes or the resulting properties of the
    rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or multiple
    substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
    appropriate, the ratification fails.

The Associate Director of Personnel's incorrect report was published on
2019-02-24, so we must determine the minimal modification to the gamestate
needed at that time to make it true and accurate. Clearly, this simply
means changing the officeholder of Prime Minister to D. Margaux and the
officeholder of Speaker to twg.

The ramifications of this self-ratification are clear. In a hypothetical
game history where D. Margaux became Prime Minister on 2019-02-24, e
clearly could not have acted on behalf of ATMunn to issue a Cabinet Order
on 2019-02-28, as ATMunn would no longer have been the Prime Minister.
Proposal 8164 would therefore never have been distributed. As a result,
the self-ratification changed the gamestate to what it would have been
if Proposal 8164 had not been distributed, annihilating the then-extant
Agoran decision on whether to adopt it.



If the Agoran decision initiated on 2019-02-28 no longer exists, it
clearly CANNOT be resolved. To the best of my knowledge, there is no
other Agoran decision on the adoption of Proposal 8164 that was initiated
more than 7 days ago. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to resolve such a
decision, ADOPTED or otherwise.

I judge CFJ 3723 FALSE.

Furthermore, I would like to note that the situation could have been much
worse if the incorrect Associate Director of Personnel report had 
happened to have been published _after_ the attempted Cabinet Order. This
might have resulted in the Assessor resolving the Agoran decision ADOPTED,
making Proposal 8164's retroactive changes to the gamestate immediately
before the Agoran decision was retroactively nullified. This would have
generated a truly alarming mess for the Rulekeepor.

So let's try not do this again, please.

==========================================================================
===============================  CFJ 3722  ===============================

      It was POSSIBLE for D. Margaux acting on behalf of ATMunn to
      issue a Cabinet Order of Manifesto in the message quoted
      below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This CFJ is the first of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to
Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3723 and CFJ 3724. As background
information, Agora is currently experiencing a minor crisis: new player
Falsifian discovered on 2019-02-14 that Rule 2124/23, "Agoran
Satisfaction", contains text that has unintended effects, with the result
that:

    Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it
    is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular,
    Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was
    ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent
    message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were
    ineffective.

This interpretation was confirmed by the H. Judge Trigon in CFJ 3712. As a
result, it is now known that all attempts to perform dependent actions
other than With Notice or With T Notice since the erroneous text was
introduced in Proposal 7815 on 2016-10-28 have failed.

Proposal 8164 seeks to solve the problem retroactively:

    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 [such that it works as intended.]

Unfortunately, it has transpired that the method by which Proposal 8164
was distributed relies upon the failure of dependent actions. D. Margaux
asserts that this means Proposal 8164, upon taking effect, changes the
gamestate to whatever the gamestate would be had it not taken effect,
creating a paradox.



On 2019-02-28, D. Margaux attempted to act on behalf of ATMunn to issue
a Cabinet Order of Manifesto - a privilege ordinarily reserved for the
Prime Minister - to distribute Proposal 8164. This attempt is the message
referred to by the caller. It is not in dispute that D. Margaux is
generally allowed, by contract, to act on behalf of ATMunn. However, it is
not clear that ATMunn was Prime Minister on 2019-02-18, and hence whether
the attempt to distribute Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE. This first CFJ
inquires into whether this was the case.

We know that ATMunn held the office of Prime Minister on 2019-02-10: this
fact is recorded in the Associate Director of Personnel's weekly report
of that date, which was internally consistent, generated no controversy,
and was never formally (or even informally) doubted. We must therefore
determine whether any event between 2019-02-10 and 2019-02-28 caused
ATMunn to cease to be Prime Minister.

I have not discovered any evidence that ATMunn resigned from or was
impeached from eir office during this period, or that an election was
resolved, or that e ceased to be a player, or that a document stating that
e was not Prime Minister was ratified. The only plausible way for em to
cease to be Prime Minister during this period would be for another player
to have deputised for the Prime Minister. In fact, D. Margaux did attempt
to do so several times during the period; I now attempt to ascertain
whether any of these attempts were EFFECTIVE.



The following attempts to win the game have occurred since 2019-01-20:

1. On 2019-01-21, D. Margaux attempted to Win by Politics. This attempt
   was judged EFFECTIVE by the H. Judge G. in CFJ 3697.
2. On 2019-02-07, Gaelan attempted to Win by Apathy.
3. On 2019-02-13, D. Margaux attempted to cause emself and twg to Win by
   Apathy.

Ordinarily, attempts 2 and 3 would have succeeded, as they met all the
ordinary requirements for Declaration of Apathy. However, Declarations of
Apathy are dependent actions, and so attempts 2 and 3 were INEFFECTIVE due
to the erroneous text in Rule 2124/23. As a result, D. Margaux is
currently the only Laureled player, and this has been the case since
2019-01-21.

On 2019-02-16, D. Margaux published the following message:

    As previously intended, I deputise for Prime Minister to name twg to
    be Speaker.
    
    If twg is not laureled, then I deputise for Prime Minister to name
    Gaelan to be Speaker.
    
    If twg and Gaelan are not laureled, then I deputise for Prime Minister
    to name D. Margaux to be Speaker (based on my cheating win—we know for
    sure that at least that win was valid).

It should be noted that announcements of intent to deputise for an office
are not dependent actions and were not rendered INEFFECTIVE by the ongoing
issues with Rule 2124. However, D. Margaux's announcements of intent were
nevertheless invalid. Eir first attempt was as follows:

    I intend with 2 days’ notice to deputise for Prime Minister to appoint
    a Speaker from among the laureled players.

Although no CFJ was judged on the matter, G. asserted that this message
was not a sufficiently clear announcement of intent to deputise for the
purposes of a "particular action" (R2160/19). I hold that G. was correct
in eir assertion: it is clear, as discussed above, that there has been
some ambiguity over which player or players was or were Laureled at the
time, and therefore D. Margaux's message was not sufficient to identify
any single action that e intended to deputise for the Prime Minister to
perform.

D. Margaux also made a second announcement of intent:

    I intend with 2 days’ notice to deputise for PM to appoint twg to be
    Speaker. 

However, as discussed above, twg was not Laureled at any time during
February 2019, and so this intent could not have been fulfilled regardless
of its validity. D. Margaux therefore did not successfully deputise for
Prime Minister at any point during the events in question, meaning that
ATMunn remained Prime Minister, and could issue a Cabinet Order, on
2019-02-28.



It is correct that, should Proposal 8164 take effect in the future, the
gamestate will be changed to whatever it would be had Gaelan, D. Margaux
and twg won the game during February 2019, and therefore that one or more
of D. Margaux's attempts to deputise for Prime Minister had been
EFFECTIVE. However, as ais528 stated in eir gratuitous arguments, this
future modification of the gamestate does not and will not change what
actually happened.

I judge CFJ 3722 TRUE.

==========================================================================

Reply via email to