Congratulations, this made me chuckle. I’d give you a karma for it, but unfortunately I’ve already used my notice this week.
Gaelan > On Jan 17, 2020, at 9:33 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Judge's Arguments for CFJs 3784 and 3785, as well as the whimsically > quasi-existent CFJ 3785.5 > > The first question presented is what the meaning of the word "I" is in a > proposal. > > The problem here is unconventional is that proposals, in their infinite > wisdom, generally choose not to use the word "I", or to describe > their actions in the way Agorans usually do. A player, generally speaking, > says "I register.", not "I am hereby registered." or "Register me!". > Proposals, being vested within the near boundless authority to modify > the gamestate as they see fit, limited only by their power and the strictures > of the rules, have little need for such niceties as stating that that they > perform their actions. They simply command that something being done, > without even a "please" or a "thank you", and expect to be obeyed. > > However, in this case, a proposal (P8277, now enacted), has seen > fit to use the word "I". We are left to determine what e means. This > is relatively simple, given the way Agora generally functions. In Agora, > most acts are speech acts, and furthermore most speech acts are performed > "by announcement", meaning by a statement that their performer does them. > This tradition is so strong that any time someone publicly says "I do X", > people expect X to be an action, performed by announcement. "I" in this > context refers both to the agent of the action and the sender of the message. > In the rare instances where the rules state that someone may cause another > to perform an action, special language is used, such as "I cause Rule N to > repeal itself." or "Acting on behalf of A, A does X". > > It's reasonable to consider actions performed by proposals in the same light. > It is as if, each proposal, upon being resolved as enacted, is called by > the rules to sit upon a grand throne and command changes to the game. > If a proposal fails to state that who is performing an action, Agorans are > sufficiently respectful to make the inference that the proposal is. Thus, > the proposal takes the place that a player would take for a by announcement > action, even if the relevant requirements are generally more relaxed. > It follows that a proposal, saying "I", generally refers to emself, since > e is the agent of eir own actions. G. has pointed out that proposals might > generally prefer to use the royal "we", as a marker of their vast dignity. > While I agree that might be preferable, such matters are ultimately for the > proposal to judge (with the humble guidance of eir author). > > The above is enough to resolve the two CFJs now before me, but would simply > cause another CFJ to be called asking whether the proposal's action > is effective, so I will resolve that question in advance as well. I thus > hypothesize into quasi-existence a CFJ known as CFJ 3785.5, with the statement > "Proposal 8277 caused coins to be transferred." (Note that I do this purely > out of whimsy, and in no way expect the Arbitor to track CFJ 3785.5.) > > Proposal 8277 did not, at the time e was adopted, have any coins. In fact, > the rules do not even allow proposals to possess coins, a notable oversight. > As > determined above, e tried to transfer coins. The question remaining is > whether e succeeded in transferring the coins. Generally, when a person > says "I transfer A to B", e means that e transfers some item, A, which e owns, > to B. Without a doubt, there are cases where A might conceivably transfer > C's property to B. E might do so as C's agent, or simply through appropriation > (whether sanctioned by the law or not) of C's property. However, in such > a case it would be either explicitly made clear as part of eir statement > or its context. I find this case not to be so clear. Certainly, a proposal > could transfer coins from anyone to anyone else. E could even conceivably > state that e was transferring coins into existence. However, if e meant > that, e would most certainly make it clear. Proposals of good Agoran stock > are in general too well-mannered to appropriate the goods of others, and > so I believe the proposal was attempting to be charitable and was simply under > a misapprehension about the extent of eir own financial resources. > > As a final matter, I note that most of what I've said applies to rules and > regulations as well as to proposals. > > To review, "I" in a proposal refers to the proposal emself, and Proposal 8277 > failed to transfer coins because e attempted to do so from emself, despite > having no coin holdings. > > I judge CFJs 3784 and 3785 FALSE. I hypothetically judge CFJ 3785.5 FALSE.
