COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
Open cases (CFJs)
-----------------
3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to D. Margaux 30 September
2018: "The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations
is unforgivable for the purposes of R2559."
3652 called by G. 20 July 2018, assigned to Cuddle Beam 30 September
2018: "If a person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir Rank 1
facility and then upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e must pay
the full Rank 2 upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month
destruction."
3661 called by D. Margaux 16 September 2018, assigned to Aris 30
September 2018: "The fines attempted to be imposed in this message are
EFFECTIVE."
3664 called 28 September 2018 by G., assigned to twg 30 September 2018:
"Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours."
3665 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to L 30 September
2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to transfer coins to the
contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE."
3666 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to L 30 September
2018: "G.’s attempt in the message quoted below to transfer coins to the
contract between em and D. Margaux is EFFECTIVE."
Highest numbered case: 3666
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, judged TRUE by Murphy 30 September
2018: "G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and
SLR."
3658 called by twg 27 August 2018, judged TRUE by G. 16 September 2018,
G. moved to reconsider 23 September 2018, re-judged TRUE by G. 29
September 2018: "The Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion
thereof, is doubted."
3662 called by Trigon 23 September 2018, judged FALSE by D. Margaux 28
September 2018: "This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change
by exactly one and then change back."
3663 called by Aris 23 September 2018, judged FALSE by G. 28 September
2018: "My definition of the reiteration of votes is effective"
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
D. Margaux 3662, 3648
[09/23 09/30]
Murphy 3655, 3656, 3645
[08/26 08/26 09/30]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
G. 3657, 3658, 3660, 3663
[08/26 09/09 09/16 09/28]
(These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court
will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will
generally be honored, even for non-court judges.)
Context/arguments/evidence
--------------------------
*** 3645 caller Aris's evidence, quoting G.:
The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including
revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule):
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size-
limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of
ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case
the rulesets bounce from BUS.
*** 3645 caller Aris's arguments, responding to ais523:
> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to
> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a
> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL
> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different.
>
> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't
> it's probably because of your disclaimer.
I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose.
A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they
want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as
the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required
information.
*** 3645 G.'s gratuitous arguments:
Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the
link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen
it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the
only evidence.
I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could
cross-reference my message timing to commit timing.
Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means
actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases
that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions,
where outside references work because the specification is like this:
"clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it"
for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual
announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that
has a clear specification.
So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because
e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an
announced verb/context doesn't do the trick.
There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub)
without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the
link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links)
would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication
timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence).
The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a
typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message
and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct
one.
(this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if
the matter is otherwise unclear).
I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum,
I'm not
opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the
Now,
and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail
archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to
know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't
know about that would make it easier.
*** 3648 caller G.'s evidence:
Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT):
> I impose summary judgement as follows: I levy a fine of 2 Blots on
> Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely
> fashion after June 1 (R2495).
*** 3648 caller G.'s arguments:
R2559 reads in part:
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
> the following assets are created in the possession of that
> player:
"Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset. The definition
is by inference in R2557:
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.
which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable.
However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice
as per an investigation of a finger-pointing. The fine in question
was levied using R2479:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> of up to 2 blots on em.
which does not mention any notion of forgiveness.
There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct:
1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable.
2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the
concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable.
FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the
fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as
forgivable.
After reading Rules a few more times, I think this is answered by this
clause in R2479:
> Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> proceeding.
I think the Finger -> Investigation -> Forgiveness is an "official
proceeding", and since summary judgement is explicitly stated to be
outside of that, any resulting penalties are neither forgivable or
unforgivable.
*** 3652 caller G.'s arguments:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
There's a few ways of interpreting this clause:
1. At the end of the month, the facility is Rank 2 and has a Rank 2 Upkeep
cost. Has the Rank 2 Upkeep cost been paid? If not, the facility is
destroyed. (argument for TRUE).
2. At the end of the month, has e paid an appropriate upkeep cost for that
facility at any point in the month? If so, e has met the conditions, even
if the upkeep cost later changes, and the facility is not destroyed
(argument
for FALSE).
3. Upkeep costs are additive - if e payed the Rank 1 fee, e can later pay
the difference after e upgrades (FALSE with different implications - I don't
think this one holds up under precedent of single payment for fees, but
including for completeness).
In interpreting, note the new Rules definition of costs/fees in EVIDENCE,
below.
*** 3652 caller G.'s evidence:
Full text of Fee-based Actions (power-3):
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, an entity (the Actor) who is
otherwise permitted to perform the action must announce that e
is performing the action; the announcement must specify the
correct set of assets for the fee and indicate intent
to pay that fee for the sole purpose of performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
*** 3652 Aris's gratuituous quasi-arguments:
No argument on CFJ 1 yet, although I agree that interpretation 3 seems
rather unlikely. I favor interpretation 2, but haven't come up with a
non-trivial argument for it.
*** 3658 caller twg's arguments:
On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed
> and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported,
> unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0.
> Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all
> liquid currencies" or the like.
>
> Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the
> Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted
> as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no
> implication that the missing data were self-ratified to 0.
>
> (This is just a guess idk, I'm not that bothered but let's not lose all
> our useless stuff if we still got it :P ).
No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I
initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was
at its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a
recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of
assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's
report - as a self-ratifying document.
An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that
CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_,
without blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might
potentially mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror
report (and possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts,
because the way we usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous:
it might be a CoE against any one of the self-ratifying documents that
make up the Treasuror report.
What a headache.
*** 3658 judge G.'s arguments:
TRUE. Specifically, G.'s CoE, quoted in the evidence for that case,
cast legal doubt on EXACTLY ONE PORTION of the Treasuror's Report dated
Aug 27 16:59:04 UTC 2018 - the portion that was a list of all instances
of Indulgences (the Indulgence column). No other section of the Report
was doubted.
*** 3658 judge G.'s revised arguments:
Imagine three possible claims of error referencing a hypothetical
officer's Report of Currency X:
A. "CoE on the Pointlesskeepor's Weekly Report: Player A does not have
N units of X".
B. "CoE on Currency X holdings: Player A does not have N units of X".
C. "CoE: Player A does not have N units of X."
Colloquially, these are all within the range of reasonable and clear
communication of the issue at hand (Player A's holdings of X). Since the
goal of self-ratification is to reduce uncertainty, it would be nice if
these variations all led to the same result. If variation (A) blocked the
self-ratification of the whole report (including other Currencies), but
(B) blocked the self-ratification of the Currency X holdings only, while
(C) blocked the self-ratification of Player A's X holdings while allowing
other Players' X holdings to self-ratify, then teasing out what facts had
self-ratified would be confusing to say the least. Is there a way to
construre statements A-C so they all lead to the same result?
Rule 2201/7 reads in part:
> A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
> methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
> nature of a perceived error in it:
So with this, a CoE or other doubt (CFJ) has three parts: The document in
question, the scope of the error, and the nature of the error.
In all of the above examples, the "nature of the error" is clear: Player
A does not have N units of X. So far, so good.
What about "document"? A "public Document" is defined by R1551 as "part
(possibly all) of a public message." This narrows things down in one
direction - a single document cannot be spread over multiple messages. But
within a message, this would allow every section, or even every single
character of a message to be a separate "document". One could even say
"I CoE on the document made up by taking every other letter of the
following report."
However, looking to the common definition of "document" gives:
> A piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides
> information or evidence or that serves as an official record.
The key point here is that a document provides information or is an
official record. At the extreme, a single character provides no
information on its own, so this suggests there's a minimum information
content for a document to be a document. And for these purposes, the
"official record" in question is clearly defined in R2166/26:
> That entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
> and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is self-
> ratifying.
This list is described as a unit, so a full list of Currency X holdings is
the minimum "unit of information" that could be considered a self-
ratifying document. Further, the fact that multiple "documents" can be
comingled means that each Currency List is a separate "document", even if
the information is in columns or otherwise combined with other "documents"
(e.g. in columns of multiple currencies).
This is specified more strongly for the other major type of
self-ratifying record, Switches (R2162/13):
> a public document
> purporting to be [the switch values] portion of that officer's
> report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at
> their default value.
Since missing values here are assumed to be at their default value, a
list of this sort self-ratifies or is CoEd as a whole. This general
principle is sensible to extend to assets as well as switches. So in the
examples above, both (B) and (C) would have the effect of stopping self-
ratification of the complete list of Currency X holdings (including for
any entities who are wholly missing from the list).
But what about example (A)? ("CoE on the Pointlesskeepor's Weekly Report:
Player A does not have N units of X".) Is this a CoE on every list (i.e.
all currencies, switches, etc.) in the Report?
Here is were "Scope" of the error comes into play. "Scope" is the range
of records affected by the error. And the most reasonable and useful way
to define "scope" is to be THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF RECORDS AFFECTED BY THE
EXPLICITLY-DESCRIBED ERROR.
This is key. So, if a message says "CoE on the Report" but doesn't cite
the explicit error, the scope is 0 (null). It's not a CoE. If the report
says "CoE on the Report: Record X is wrong" then the scope is Record X,
and by the argument above the MINIMAL record is the full list of X, but
not the full report.
In other words, regardless of what document the caller CLAIMS is in scope,
the true scope of the CoE (the true document) is always the minimal but
complete list that contains the class of records identified as the error.
In the current situation, the alleged CoE text included the text of the
Report named in the CFJ statement, with the following:
> CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed
> and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported,
> unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0.
The report contained a record of incense (at the time for one player).
Therefore, the CoE was explicitly on the full list of Incense holdings
(a portion of the report). TRUE.
*** 3661 attempted fines referenced in statement:
I act on behalf of nihdel to Point eir Finger at the following players for
the following reasons:
V.J Rada, for being late in resolving CFJ 3648 assigned on 26 Aug 2018
at 6:44 PM UTC; and
Corona, for being late in resolving CFJ 3652 assigned on 26 Aug 2018
at 6:44 PM UTC.
*** 3662 message referenced in statement:
I submit this notice of honor:
-1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
+1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
*** 3662 caller Trigon's arguments:
In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with nothing.
For example:
J. R. R. Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien
J R R Tolkien
JRR Tolkien
All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should be
accepted using any method of separation.
Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a person
who registered during April of this year.
*** 3662 G.'s gratuituous arguments:
1. CFJ 3657 found that the +1 and -1 are simultaneous:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039083.html
2. In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
same entity as in clause (3). Does the "other" mean anything with that
reversal?
*** 3662 judge D. Margaux's arguments:
This CFJ raises three questions.
1. Rule 2510 provides that a published Notice of Honour is EFFECTIVE
inter alia only if it is “clear that [the published message is] a Notice
of Honour.” Trigon evidently attempted to publish a Notice of Honour by
stating, “I submit this notice of honor.” The first question is whether
it is “clear” that this misspelled “notice of honor” is a “Notice of
Honour.”
“Honor” and “Honour” are accepted alternate spellings of the same word.
Any reasonable player would understand that Trigon’s message was
publishing a Notice of Honour under Rule 2510. And it would cause great
mischief, and opportunities for lame and annoying scams to the detriment
of the game, if the use of accepted alternative spellings or minor
typographical errors could defeat the EFFECTIVEness of a message that is
otherwise clearly and unmistakably an attempt to undertake a valid game
action.
Accordingly, I judge that the spelling of “Honour” as “honor” does not
defeat the EFFECTIVEness of Trigon’s Notice of Honour.
2. Trigon’s Notice of Honour attempted to remove one karma from “D.
Margaux” and add one karma to “D Margaux.” The second question is
whether those two names both are acceptable ways to refer to the same
player (i.e., me, the judge in this case).
There are no Rules that require players to have only one single
immutable “name.” Rule 2139 requires the Registrar to maintain
“information sufficient to identify and contact each player,” but it
does not require the Registrar to maintain a single official “name” for
players.
It would also cause great mischief and opportunities for annoying and
lame scams if actions that plainly and unmistakably named a player were
deemed INEFFECTIVE because the name had a minor and insubstantial typo
or used a commonly recognized spelling variation.
Last month, I sent a registration message signed “--D. Margaux,” from an
email account with an email name “D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com>.”
Any reasonable player would perceive that both “D Margaux” and “D.
Margaux” refer to the same entity (me). Several messages have referred
to me using either of those two variations without comment from any
player or any indication of confusion or ambiguity.
Accordingly, I judge that Trigon’s message named me as the player to
both gain and lose one karma in eir Notice of Honour.
3. The CFJ requires me to decide not only whether Trigon issued a valid
Notice of Honour, but also whether that Notice _sequentially_ lowered
and then raised my karma. In particular, the CFJ reads, “This Notice of
Honour causes a player's karma to change by exactly one and _then_
change back” (emphasis added).
As decided by CFJ 3657, a valid Notice of Honour transfers karma from
one entity to another simultaneously, not in sequence.
As a result, although the Notice of Honour did add and subtract one
karma from me, that addition and subtraction occurred simultaneously,
not sequentially. It did not lower “then” raise my karma (or vice
versa).
Accordingly, I judge that the CFJ is FALSE.
*** 3662 judge D. Margaux's evidence:
> Rule 2139/14 (The Registrar)
> The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
track of players. The Registrar's weekly report includes:
>
> 1. A list of all players, including information sufficient to
identify and contact each player. . . .
> Rule 2510/4 (Such is Karma)
> . . .
> A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. For a Notice of Honour to be
valid, it must:
> 1. Be clear that it is a Notice of Honour, and be the first
valid Notice of Honour that player has published in the current week;
> 2. Specify any other player or Agora to gain karma, and provide
a reason for specifying that player; and
> 3. Specify any player or Agora to lose karma, and provide a
reason for specifying that player.
> 4. Not result in Agora's karma moving farther away from 0.
> . . .
*** 3663 caller Aris's arguments:
On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:49 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>
> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>
>>>> [This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
>>>> added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
>>>> which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that
>>>> requires em to retrieve it.]
>>>
>>> The obvious question is why e should be required to keep the
information
>>> in the definition message.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Ørjan.
>>>
>> This is intended to work the same way TTttPF works, by becoming a
part of
>> the Agoran dialect. This formal definition is merely supposed to enter
> the
>> information into our collective consciousness.
>
> I don't think that works when "I reiterate my votes" has an obvious
> natural meaning that _isn't_ what you want.
>
> "On behalf of myself and my Zombie, I reiterate our votes." should work,
> and then you can shorten it to ObomamZ after people get used to it. :P
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
*** 3663 judge G.'s arguments:
The Caller has attempted to assert that a certain short phrase (hereafter
the Jargon) can be substituted for a set of actions (hereafter the
Actions). In this context, "effective" in the CFJ statement could have
two meanings: (1) Does the Jargon effectively enter the Agoran lexicon as
a replacement stating that one performs the Actions, and (2) do the
Actions themselves (i.e. if announced without the Jargon) have the desired
game effect. In other words, is it effective in word AND in deed? I'll
opine on both of these.
I'll start with the second one. The Actions in question are:
"I unconditionally vote, and act on
behalf of each zombie that I own to unconditionally vote, the same on
the Agoran Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X as I did the
last time I voted on an Agoran Decision on the subject whether to
adopt X, or PRESENT if I have never before voted on an Agoan Decision
on the subject of whether to adopt X"
First, I'll note that Agora favors "natural language" in talking about
"definitions", not the "computer programming" sense of definitions. In
the computer programming sense, one would substitute the Actions for the
Jargon before evaluating the statement, then treat the statement as if it
contained the exact quote. However, in natural language, we look at
context and parts of speech, and don't perform "exact substitutions"
generally.
Looking at the Actions, there's an unexpected side-issue, specifically
with Zombies, in R2466(Acting on Behalf):
the agent must, in the message in which the
action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the
action is being taken on behalf of that person.
The key phrase here is "in the message...uniquely identify". For actions
in general, we have a weaker standard, we've allowed "specify" in R478
to include outside references (e.g. to other Reports or messages).
However, "in the same message uniquely identify" is a stronger standard.
Specifying "each zombie I own" or even "my zombie" does not IN THE SAME
MESSAGE identify the principal - instead it refers to outside
information. The only Rules-supported way to uniquely identify a person
in a standalone message is in R2139: using "information sufficient to
identify" the principal, which by long-standing tradition is the person's
name or nickname (and yes, variant spellings count as long as there's no
confusion).
Therefore, for ANY zombie action, the zombie's name must appear explicitly
in the action message, AND a clear indication that it's an act-on-behalf
action (via verbs like "I act on behalf" or "I make" or "I cause" or "I
have" or explicitly indicating that the explicitly-named person is the
agent's zombie). And importantly, "in the message" means NO substitutions
allowed.
Therefore, these actions, by using "each zombie", would fail, even if used
directly without the Jargon. And further, since the Jargon does not
explicitly include the "act on behalf", using the Jargon would have two
points of failure.
Important to note, this affects our general interpretation of zombie
actions. Past actions that use "my zombie" instead of a name have been
accepted, that was incorrect (but those have self-ratified I believe).
The zombie part aside, I find that some variant of "I unconditionally vote
as I did on my most recent vote" is fine and functional, provided the
record is reasonably clear. But the zombie part makes the Actions
as a whole ineffective.
NOW: on to the Jargon. Has the Caller successfully introduced "reiterate"
as a synonym for a particular set of Actions?
In general, Agorans use Jargon a fair amount, and there's nothing wrong
with that. However, each player is not free to adopt Humpty Dumpty's
maxim of choosing words to mean just what *they* want them to mean, that's
chaos rather than communication.
Further, CFJ 1460 set a long-standing precedent that announced actions
cannot take an unreasonable effort to interpret (this is captured in R2517
for conditionals). This needs to be considered collectively as well as
individually - while it isn't unreasonable for an Assessor to remember a
few, well-used pieces of Jargon, it would be unreasonable if 20 players
introduced 20 different pieces of Jargon with slightly different nuances.
So what's the appropriate filter? After some considerations about how
jargon enters Agora, I offer 3 tests that a judge might consider.
1. Is the Jargon contained in a Rules-sanctioned legal document? (E.g.
the Rules or a Contract)?
2. Does the Jargon stand out as a term-of-art? (that is, is its proposed
use sufficiently different than the jargon's common use, or is it clearly
an acronym, so that a typical Agoran reader would recognize it as jargon,
even if e didn't know the exact meaning?)
3. Was the Jargon introduced with context initially (and repeatedly)?
(E.g., in its early use, it was used as "I [Jargon], as per the [Jargon]
Contract" or quoting the meaning of the jargon).
These are guidelines, not hard-and-fast proscriptions. These are not
meant to stifle the natural evolution of a community's communication
practices. However, these should CERTAINLY be examined when attempts are
made to *purposefully* introduce a new term.
My feeling is that, for most cases, having 1 of the above elements isn't
enough. Just being in a Contract isn't enough if the term is otherwise
common and hasn't been introduced with context. Just being a stand-out
word isn't enough if there's no reference for the meaning. Being
introduced in context isn't enough if it doesn't stand out later. So
maybe 2 of the 3 is enough (e.g. the Foundry contract satisfied (1) and
(2) for Shipping and Receiving, TTTTPF satisfies (2) and (3)). But this
should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
So how does the Caller's attempt fare?
1. The document in questioned is not rules-sanctioned, so 0 points there.
2. Not only does the chosen term ("reiterate") have a common use that
makes sense in context of voting, but the common use is actually opposite
the proposed meaning! To "reiterate" means to "restate clearly". If you
say "I hereby restate my name for the record" but don't actually restate
your name, that's "I Say I Did" - it's not true that you did it.
Similarly, if you say "I reiterate my vote" without actually restating
your vote, you're not telling the truth in common language. Since this is
a complete reverse of the term's common-language use, and the common-use
makes perfect sense with respect to restating a vote, I'd give a -1 there.
3. The term has seen one "actual" use, without context in the message.
So 0 there. (Maybe 0.5, as the proximity of other threads on the subject
might offer context).
Again, these are guidelines, it's not as if summing them is trying to meet
a set level. But overall, taking the tests both individually and
collectively, it seems here that this particular Jargon introduction would
not be effective at conveying the intended actions, so the definition is
ineffective.
Having noted that the caller's definition is ineffective both in word and
in deed, I find this CFJ FALSE.
*** 3664 caller G.'s arguments:
1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts?
It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake
deals" be backed up by Agoran courts.
2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works -
by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and
is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows
it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked.
*** 3664 caller G.'s evidence:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my
>> refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other
>> properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to
transfer
>> all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September.
>>
>> I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings
wouldn't
>> survive and that would be a shame.
>>
>> This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the
economy
>> didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who
claimed
>> the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of
them back
>> so I don't have to start from scratch.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
> --
> D. Margaux
*** 3665 context:
The text of the contract between me and G. is provided at bottom of this
email.
I transfer 30 coins to nichdel.
I transfer all of my coins to the contract below between me and G.
I cause nichdel to transfer 30 coins to me.
I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message
to transfer coins to the contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE.” (I note
for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested party. Also twg might be
considered an interested party because this transfer circumvents the
“according to eir means” proposals that e authored.)
If my attempt to transfer coins to the contract between me and G. was
INEFFECTIVE, then I change my vote and cause nichdel to change eir vote on
8081B* to FOR.
///// Contract between D. Margaux and G. /////
1. This is a contract between D. Margaux and G. (the “parties”). Other
players CANNOT join this contract without consent of both parties. This
contract CAN be terminated by consent of both parties.
2. The name of this contract is the “First Bank of Agora.”
3. A party to this contract has “on deposit in the contract” an amount of
coins equal to the total number of coins e has deposited in this contract,
minus the total number of coins e has withdrawn from the contract.
4. Any party to this contract CAN transfer coins to this contract. Making
such a transfer is called “depositing” those coins in the contract.
5. Any party to this contract CAN cause the contract to transfer to em any
amount of coins less than or equal to the number of coins e has on deposit
in the contract. Making such a transfer is called “withdrawing” the coins
from the contract.
///// end of contract /////
On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:12 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash. -G.
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>> G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the following
SHA256
>> hash:
>>
>> 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D
>>
>> I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for that text
to
>> be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees.
*** 3666 context:
I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “G.’s attempt in the message quoted
below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is
EFFECTIVE.” (I note for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested
party. Also twg might be considered an interested party because this
transfer circumvents the “according to eir means” proposals that e
authored.)
(This should raise exactly the same issues as the CFJ that I just raised in
my most recent message, but just in case.)
On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 7:04 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I transfer 400 coins to the Contract that I most recently publicly
> agreed to.
>
> [Yes, I am aware of the current text of R2483.]
