Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
reports?

On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> the
> > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
> > at that exact time.
> >
> > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think it
> > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> but
> > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> >
> > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to publish,
> or
> > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> >
> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
> > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> document.
> > > > E said:
> > > >
> > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true
> > at
> > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > >
> > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> clearly
> > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > >
> > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook <jc...@cs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > >
> > > > > --------
> > > > >
> > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > >
> > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > effective."
> > > > >
> > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux
> > has
> > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > ============
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> around
> > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > "[Referee]
> > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > everything here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > =====================================
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > >
> > > > >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux
> > has
> > > 0
> > > > >   blots.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> > > ratify
> > > > >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > > >
> > > > >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace
> > Rules”
> > > > >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > > > >
> > > > >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > > >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > > > >
> > > > >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by
> the
> > > > >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor
> pursuant
> > to
> > > > >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the
> > following
> > > > >   weekly reports:
> > > > >
> > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is
> the
> > > > >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > > > >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their
> > default
> > > > >   value.}
> > > > >
> > > > >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > > > >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > > > >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> > > value.}
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-25 22:02
> > > > >
> > > > >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > > >   information in the above reports.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-25 22:54
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on
> > eir
> > > > >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the
> finger
> > > > >   pointed".
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-26 22:43
> > > > >
> > > > >   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold
> Hand
> > > of
> > > > >   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following
> > > message:
> > > > >
> > > > >   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the
> > information
> > > > in the
> > > > >   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for
> > the
> > > > good of
> > > > >   > the game, but there were also other options available
> (proposal,
> > or
> > > > >   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely
> to
> > > > cause any
> > > > >   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the
> > good
> > > > of the
> > > > >   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the
> > circumstances
> > > > though,
> > > > >   > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> > > > consider and
> > > > >   > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> > > > >   >
> > > > >   > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of
> Justice
> > on
> > > > D.
> > > > >   > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The
> > > > required
> > > > >   > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > > > >   > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-26 22:50
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> > > > >   ratify.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-27 14:11
> > > > >
> > > > >   D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-27 19:58
> > > > >
> > > > >   Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
> > > > > ==================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine
> > > would
> > > > > have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of
> > Justice
> > > > > by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements
> of
> > > > > Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul
> of
> > > any
> > > > > of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
> > > > > INEFFECTIVE if...").
> > > > >
> > > > > Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
> > > > >
> > > > > The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots)
> > and
> > > > > the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence
> > > performing
> > > > > the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine
> (message
> > is
> > > > > copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose...").
> > However,
> > > > > Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the
> > information
> > > > > in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so
> > > Condition
> > > > > 1 does not trigger.
> > > > >
> > > > > Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531:
> > > > >
> > > > > The officer reports were false at the time they were published. For
> > > > > example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that many
> > > > > players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long since
> > > > > self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims no
> > > > > Spaceships exist.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent reports,
> > > > > D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking action, so these two
> conditions
> > > do
> > > > > not apply.
> > > > >
> > > > > Conditions 4 through 8 are straightforward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore, if D. Margaux's document and reports were never
> ratified,
> > > the
> > > > > attempted imposition would have been EFFECTIVE, and D. Margaux
> would
> > > > > have blots.
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. The timeline hypothesized by rule 1551
> > > > > =========================================
> > > > >
> > > > > When D. Margaux ratified eir document on May 26, according to Rule
> > > 1551,
> > > > > the gamestate was "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".
> > > > >
> > > > > (D. Margaux specified 2019-05-20 00:00 GMT as being the time the
> > > > > document was true, but since the time was not part of the document
> > > > > itself, it does trigger Rule 1551's clause "if the document
> > explicitly
> > > > > specifies a different past time...". Anyway, I think the document
> was
> > > > > published close enough to that time that the effect is the same.)
> > > > >
> > > > > To understand how Rule 1551 modified the gamestate, the first step
> is
> > > to
> > > > > understand the minimal modification that is hypothetically applied
> at
> > > > > the time the document was published. This minimal modification is
> > > clear:
> > > > > all switches created directly by the Politics and Spaaace Rules are
> > > > > modified to be at their default values, and all entities and
> switches
> > > > > created by the Clork or Astronomor according to those respective
> > Rules
> > > > > are removed so that they do not exist in the minimally modified
> > > > > gamestate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Having understood the hypothetical minimal modification, the next
> > step
> > > > > is to understand what would have happened from that point in time
> > > > > onward. We end up with the following timeline:
> > > > >
> > > > > * D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
> > > > > * omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > > > >   information in those reports.
> > > > > * D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the
> > > investigation.
> > > > > * Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the attempt
> > is
> > > > >   INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules.
> > > > >
> > > > > In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ
> 3726
> > > > > would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was INEFFECTIVE,
> > and
> > > > > the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well, since
> > D.
> > > > > Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee report,
> > > > > which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called.
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. The gamestate after ratification
> > > > > ===================================
> > > > >
> > > > > After D. Margaux ratified eir document, the gamestate was modified
> to
> > > > > what it would be in the hypothetical timeline above. Our task now
> is
> > to
> > > > > determine how that modification affects the value of the two CFJs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it is clear that blot holdings are part of the gamestate.
> For
> > > > > one thing, they only exist because the game defines em, and are
> part
> > of
> > > > > the state that we keep track of, so the terms "game" and "state"
> fit.
> > > > > For another, blots are an asset tracked by some recordkeepor (the
> > > > > Referee), and Rule 2166 states that the portion of a recordkeepor's
> > > > > report that lists assets is self-ratifying, which wouldn't mean
> much
> > if
> > > > > such assets weren't part of the gamestate. Therefore at the end of
> > this
> > > > > message I will judge 3727 FALSE.
> > > > >
> > > > > The harder question is whether the change to the gamestate affects
> > CFJ
> > > > > 3726. I believe it comes down to this question:
> > > > >
> > > > >    Does the gamestate include information about past events, such
> as
> > > > >    whether the attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice was
> > > > >    effective, and is CFJ 3726 referring to the information
> contained
> > in
> > > > >    the gamestate?
> > > > >
> > > > > If the answers are no, then CFJ 3726 should be judged TRUE, as
> argued
> > > in
> > > > > Section 3 above. If the answers are yes, then CFJ 3726 should be
> > judged
> > > > > FALSE, according to the timeline described in Section 4.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I
> > will
> > > > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there
> > could
> > > > > be doubt about this.
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
> > > > > =================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > When the rules talk about a concept that isn't defined by the
> rules,
> > > > > we generally assume they're referring to the concept in reality.
> For
> > > > > example, the rules don't define what a message is, and they don't
> > > define
> > > > > the meaning of fundamental words like "is", "for", etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Therefore it's natural to assume that when the rules discuss what
> > > "was",
> > > > > they are referring to past events. I think it's defensible to
> assume
> > > > > that even if the past event being referred to is a legal fiction,
> the
> > > > > rules are referring to what the Rules had to say about the legal
> > > fiction
> > > > > in the past, rather than some new legal fiction the Rules currently
> > > > > define about the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > To instead say that whenever the Rules refer to the past, they are
> > > > > referring to some fictitious past defined by the rules, could be
> said
> > > to
> > > > > be a very drastic statement, requiring strong evidence to back it
> up.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. The past is part of the gamestate
> > > > > ====================================
> > > > >
> > > > > However, I think sufficient evidence does exist to say the
> gamestate
> > > > > contains information about past actions, and that the Rules refer
> to
> > > the
> > > > > gamestate when they talk about the past.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7A. The text of the rules
> > > > > =========================
> > > > >
> > > > > In two places, the text of the Rules seem to imply that the past is
> > > part
> > > > > of the gamestate:
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 1551 says:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
> > > > > > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from
> ratification.
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying
> claims
> > > of
> > > > > several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had
> the
> > > > > number of voters indicated", etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about
> the
> > > > > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring
> > to
> > > > > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense. The
> > > > > gamestate couldn't be "minimally modified" to make these statements
> > > > > true in the hypothetical timeline described by Rule 1551, and after
> > the
> > > > > ratification, the modified facts about the past, not being part of
> > the
> > > > > gamestate, would not be.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7B. Past judgements about judgements about the past
> > > > > ===================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 217 instructs us that when the text of the rules is silent,
> > > > > inconsistent or unclear, we should augment it with past judgements
> > > > > (among other things).
> > > > >
> > > > > omd pointed out that the judgement CFJ 3337 [0] relied on
> > > > > past events being part of the gamestate. Judge G.'s judgement of
> that
> > > CFJ
> > > > > relied on the assertion that after a document stating the past date
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > player's registration was ratified, that player became eligible to
> > vote
> > > > > in a decision they otherwise would not have been eligible for,
> > because
> > > > > the text of the ratified document implied that they were registered
> > at
> > > > > the start of the voting period.
> > > > >
> > > > > The judgement of CFJ 2491 [1] also relied on precedent being part
> of
> > > the
> > > > > game state: Judge Yally's judgement was that since a document was
> > > > > ratified implying that Rodlen became an officer sufficiently long
> ago
> > > > > for em to be awarded a green ribbon, e should be awarded a green
> > > ribbon.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both of these judgements support the conclusion that the past is
> part
> > > of
> > > > > the gamestate.
> > > > >
> > > > > 7C. The best interests of the game
> > > > > ==================================
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 217 also instructs us to consider the best interests of the
> > game.
> > > > >
> > > > > Generally, the purpose of gamestate changes such as the effect of
> > > > > ratification is to clarify the current situation in the game in
> order
> > > to
> > > > > allow play to continue smoothly. Consider the following examples
> > where
> > > > > rules make actions possible or required depending on what happened
> in
> > > > > the past:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Rule 2555: "If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any
> > > > >   blots from emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1
> blot
> > > > >   from emself by announcement."
> > > > >
> > > > > * Rule 2496: Whether a player can earn a reward depends on whether
> > they
> > > > >   have fulfilled the condition in the past 7 days, and also on
> > whether
> > > e
> > > > >   has already claimed that reward.
> > > > >
> > > > > * Many rules allow or require a player to take an action "in a
> timely
> > > > >   fashion" after a past event.
> > > > >
> > > > > When a ratification event clarifies the current situation in the
> > game,
> > > > > it would be helpful if the above examples are among the things that
> > are
> > > > > clarified. For example, after ratification of a document implying
> > > > > whether or not a player has gained blots in the current week, that
> > > > > player can confidently know whether they are able to expunge a
> blot.
> > > All
> > > > > other things being equal, I think it is in the best interests of
> the
> > > > > game if ratification clarifies these examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > (There may be best-interests-of-the-game arguments going the other
> > way,
> > > > > e.g. maybe it's easier to untangle some situations if ratification
> > > isn't
> > > > > mucking around with the past. But 7A and 7B still apply.)
> > > > >
> > > > > We could at this point try to pick and choose just those elements
> of
> > > the
> > > > > past are directly relevant: e.g. since D. Margaux didn't have any
> > blots
> > > > > to begin with, CFJ 3726 is not relevant to whether e can expunge
> any
> > > > > blots, so CFJ 3726 may not matter to the best interests of the
> game.
> > > But
> > > > > I think that would be overcomplicating things. If the gamestate
> > > includes
> > > > > the effectiveness of some past actions, it is natural to assume it
> > > > > includes the effectiveness of all of them.
> > > > >
> > > > > 8. It depends on what the meaning of the word "was" was
> > > > > =======================================================
> > > > >
> > > > > There's still a question of interpreting CFJ 3726 itself. I have
> > > > > concluded that when the Rules refer to the effectiveness of past
> > > > > actions, they are referring to information in the gamestate about
> the
> > > > > past. But CFJ 3726 is not a rule. What does "was effective" mean in
> > the
> > > > > statement in CFJ 3726?
> > > > >
> > > > > Rule 591 has guidance on delivering judgements:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
> > > > > > the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
> > > > > > initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > > > >   logically false
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
> > > > > >   logically true
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe "legal situation" means I should base my decision on what
> > the
> > > > > rules say. Moreover, the CFJ process is more useful if judgements
> on
> > > > > statements agree with what the rules say about those statements.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I will interpret "was effective" as referring to information
> > about
> > > > > the past contained in the gamestate.
> > > > >
> > > > > 9. Judgement
> > > > > ============
> > > > >
> > > > > I judge CFJ 3726 FALSE.
> > > > > I judge CFJ 3727 FALSE.
> > > > >
> > > > > [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
> > > > > [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2491
> > > >
> > > --
> > > D. Margaux
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to