On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the
> >> above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that
> >> message.", I initiate one.
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work,
> > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous,
> > you need to identify who "I" is.
> >
> > ...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I
> > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least
> > did under the rules of the time:
> >
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180
>
> I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and
> didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was
> only retroactive uncertainty).
>
> Gratuitous based on current rules:
>
> In this R78 text:
> unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> it.
>
> the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity
> of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion
> that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by
> the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying
> that e's the one performing it. This is a "for the good of the game"
> argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the
> self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule).
A ton of people are taking this reading, and I just don't get it.
You're reading an awful lot into that e. I think the obvious and most
sensible reading of that provision is that a person doesn't just have
to specify an action (people do this all the time even when they don't
want to perform an action). E also has to specify that e wants to
perform the action, which stops people from accidentally triggering
the provision by mistake.
As further exposition for this, I'll note that if I meant the
interpretation I just wrote out, I'd have written the rule exactly the
way it's written now. I'd figure that anyone who says "I do X" is
announcing that e is doing X (practically by definition). If I'd
wanted em to have to specify eir identity, I would have written that
as a separate thing e must specify.
Imagine, for a second, that you're a detective and you hear a man in
another room say "I stole the painting!". You might whisper to your
assistant "he's confessed that he's the thief!". Now imagine that your
assistant told you "no, he hasn't, because we don't know what the
referent of the word "he" is, and that sentence doesn't make sense
without a referent".
Are you seeing my point? The argument that you need to know someone's
identity for the person to announce that they're doing something is
ridiculous. It borders on the downright absurd. That's... just not how
words work. You can't go and take perfectly clear rules text and make
it say whatever you want because what it actually says isn't in the
best interest of the game, and I think that's what's happening here.
There's another way to argue this for by announcement actions though.
You could argue that the actor is intrinsically part of the action, to
the point where any unspecified actor voids the action. I disagree.
Voting for a proposal is an action, and it's the same action whether I
do it or G. does it or someone else does it.
A final point is that this entire discussion is irrelevant because
voting is done by notice, not by announcement. The exclusive criteria
for valid ballots are in Rule 683.
Rule 683/26 (Power=3)
Voting on Agoran Decisions
An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions:
1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
decision.
2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
initiation of the decision, a player.
3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
the voting method.
5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
the identified vote.
6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.
A valid ballot is a ballot, correctly submitted, that has not
been withdrawn. During the voting period of an Agoran decision,
an entity CAN by announcement withdraw (syn. retract) a ballot
that e submitted on that decision. To "change" one's vote is to
retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one.
-Aris
