COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
May contain inadvertent errors due to newbie arbitor
learning the ropes.
Open cases (CFJs)
-----------------
3674 called 15 October 2018, assigned to Aris 20 October 2018: "In the
quoted message, G. objected to at least one intent to perform a
dependent action."
3682 (formerly CFJ 3678), called by twg 31 October 2018, assigned to
Murphy 1 November 2018: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
Highest numbered case: 3686
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3652 called by G. 20 July 2018, judged IRRELEVANT by D. Margaux 27
October 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."
3670 called 12 October 2018 by twg, judged FALSE by Trigon 20 October
2018: "In the quoted message, G. transferred at least 1 coin from the
Lost and Found Department to emself."
3671 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, judged FALSE by Trigon 29
October 2018: "All pure active players could have won by announcement
on the Effective Date under rule 2580."
3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, judged TRUE by D. Margaux
29 October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the
game by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
expungement of Trigon's blot."
3673 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, judged FALSE by Trigon 29
October 2018: "Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date
under rule 2580."
3676 called by G. 20 October 2018, judged FALSE by Murphy 27 October
2018: "D. Margaux won by apathy in the message referred to in
evidence."
3677 called by D. Margaux 24 October 2018, judged FALSE by twg 1
November 2018: "G. violated Rule 2471 (No Faking) when e published a
message that stated, 'Oh for crying out loud. I object to everything.
To everything, literally. I object.'"
3678 called 27 October 2018, judged FALSE by Murphy 4 November 2018:
"By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed
one or more regulated actions."
3679 called 29 October 2018, judged FALSE by G. 2 November 2018: "“If
in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to any announced intents
to Demand Resignation, then Agora is not satisfied with those intents
and an attempt to Demand Resignation would be INEFFECTIVE.”
3680 called 29 October 2018, judged FALSE by G. 2 November 2018: "A
player CAN object more than once to a dependent action if e has not
ever withdrawn an objection to that dependent action."
3681 called 29 October 2018, judged DISMISS by G. 29 October 2018: "D.
Margaux’s attempt in this message to assign CFJ 3672 to emself was
EFFECTIVE.”
3683 (formerly CFJ 3679), called by ATMunn 1 November 2018, judged
FALSE by Trigon 3 November 2018: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the
below quoted message."
3684 (formerly CFJ 3680), called by twg 1 November 2018, judged FALSE
by Trigon 3 November 2018: "V.J. Rada committed the crime of
Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message."
3685 (formerly CFJ 3681), called by Aris 2 November 2018, judged TRUE
by D Margaux 10 November 2018: "Performing an action with N support is
a dependent action."
3686 (formerly CFJ 3682), called by Aris 2 November 2018, judged FALSE
by D Margaux 10 November 2018: ""Performing an action on behalf is
always a dependent action".
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
D. Margaux 3675, 3668, 3669, 3652, 3672, 3685, 3686
[10/02 10/20 10/20 10/27 10/29 11/2 11/2]
G. 3667, 3679, 3680, 3681
[10/20 11/2 11/2 10/29]
Murphy 3652, 3676, 3682, 3678
[10/20 10/21 11/1 11/4]
Trigon 3670, 3671, 3673, 3683, 3684
[10/20 10/20 10/20 11/1 11/1]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
ATMunn 3665, 3666
[10/20 10/20]
(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
--------------------------
*** 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.
*** 3652 Judge's arguements:
I judge CFJ 3652 to be IRRELEVANT because the cited rules have been repealed.
*** 3670 Judge's arguement:
CFJ 3670 JUDGEMENT
========================================================================
Called by: twg
Date: October 12, 2018
CALLER'S MESSAGE
========================================================================
[1] October 12, 2018, twg:
> I CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. transferred at least 1
> coin from the Lost and Found Department to emself." I note for the
> Arbitor's benefit that D. Margaux is also an interested party.
JUDGEMENT
=======================================================================
This case deals with two contracts. The First Bank of Agora (FBoA) was
created to counteract some asset releveling. G. and D. Margaux were the
two parties who consented in the beginning, and no other parties were
added to the contract afterwards. The second contract[3][4], is unnamed
and terminates the FBoA. Again, G. and D. Margaux were the only two
parties to this contract.
The assumption is that the second contract is successful in terminating
the first, since all consenting parties to the first also consented to
the second, which provides a mechanism to terminate the first.
The confusion comes in when we ask what it actually means to terminate
a contract. As stated by twg[7], there is not any method to revoke
consent, but as D. Margaux argued[8], Rule 1742 states that a contract
can "terminate by agreement between all parties". Since there is no
definition for such an action in the ruleset, e argues that we should
look to standard English definitions for clarification. By this
interpretation, the FBoA is now terminated and, in a more technical
Agoran interpretation, does not exist.
But that's not what the CFJ really is inquiring about, is it?
We first must take a look at G.'s actions[4]. First, e agrees to
terminate the FBoA. That works, according to the paragraphs above. Then,
e transfers the Lost and Found Department's coins to emself. Then, e
transfers 606 coins to D. Margaux. E only does these three actions if
eir intent to transfer all the L&FD's coins[2] worked. As the intent was
published to a public forum and e had given sufficient notice, the
condition is fulfilled and e did, in fact, perform the three given
actions.
I judge this CFJ TRUE.
CONTEXT MESSAGE(S)
=======================================================================
[2] October 7, 2018, G.:
> [snip]
> twg (20 Aug 2018)
> -1 Corona (violating rule 2201, which e cannot be fined for because
> it occurred >14 days ago). Not part of report: I intend without
> objection to transfer all coins in the lost&found department to G.
> +1 Trigon (twg believed that Trigon did not have a zombie at the
> time of the last proposal distribution; Trigon attempted to point
> this out, but e didn't listen properly).
> [snip]
[3] October 11, 2018, D. Margaux:
> I have sent to G. certain text that has the below SHA-256 hash, and I
> consent to be bound by that text as a contract if G. accepts the
> contract within the next 24 hours.
>
> 2041D49B9354D9BEB770BA513025B4E3D34E5529A18AFF5681FB51AE10FAF930
[4] October 11, 2018, G. (response to [3], annotated):
> The above-referenced Contract reads:
> G. and D. Margaux agree that the contract entitled the First Bank of
Agora is terminated.
>
>
> If and only if my intent regarding the lost&found department[2],
announced
> in my Herald’s Weekly report of 07-Oct-18 (reproduced below for
reference),
> is EFFECTIVE to enable, absent objection, the action it describes, then:
>
> 1. I agree to the contract above to terminate the Bank contract;
> 2. Without Objection, I transfer all coins in the Lost and Found
> Department to myself; and
> 3. I transfer 606 coins to D. Margaux.
ARGUMENTS
========================================================================
[5] October 12, 2018, Aris (response to a response to [4]):
> Terminated contracts don’t exist. Nonexistent entities can’t own assets.
[6] October 12, 2018, G. (response to a response to [4]):
> It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic
> to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets.
[7] October 12, 2018, twg (response to [6]):
> G. wrote:
> > It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic
> > to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets.
>
> R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract":
>
> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract.
>
> The FBoA is an agreement that was made between consenting persons
with that intention. Whether those consenting persons _still_ so intend
is not a factor that the definition takes into account.
>
> And they are still "consenting persons", as per R2519...
>
> A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
> as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.
>
> ...which does not provide a mechanism to _revoke_ consent.
>
> Aris wrote:
> > Terminated contracts don’t exist.
>
> Again, I see nothing in the rules to support this assumption.
[8] October 13, 2018, D. Margaux (response to [7], spacing altered):
> Rule 1472 says “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
> parties.” That’s what happened here. Per Merriam-Webster, the relevant
> intransitive definition of “terminate” is to “come to an end in time.”
> I’m not sure why a contract that has “come to an end in time” would
> still be thought to exist, or be capable of holding assets, after that
> time. If it holds assets, then in that particular respect it hasn’t
> yet “come to an end.”
*** 3671 and 3673 judgement, and 3672 gratuitous arguements (and
purported but INEFFECTIVE 3672 judgement):
====================================
CFJ 3671-3 JUDGEMENTS
CALLER'S MESSAGE
--------------------
October 15, 2018; twg:
> I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that
they should probably be assigned to the same judge:
>
> > 1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the
Effective
> > Date under rule 2580”
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by
announcement
> > under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s
> > blot”
> >
> > and
> >
> > 3. “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under
rule 2580”
RELEVANT RULE
-----------------
Rule 2580/2 (Power=1)
Round Robin
The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is
automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the
Effective Date.
The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris,
G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona,
Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy,
Trigon, ATMunn, and twg.
The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the
Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game
by announcement on the Effective Date.
The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the
Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game
by announcement on the Effective Date.
SHARED JUDGE'S ARGUMENTS
----------------------------
I'm going to reiterate a lot of my previous arguments about this subject
because I think they're relevant and good.
Here is a chart detailing which slate each player has:
A and B B and C C and A
--------- --------- ---------
VJ Rada L. Cuddles
Margaux Corona Aris
PSS Trigon Murphy
G. twg ATMunn
Rule 2580 creates two mechanisms by which players CAN win. Upon a
cursory glance, this seems pretty straightforward. There is a mechanism
for anyone belonging to Slate A to be able to win by announcement that
is quickly voided by the next paragraph, which allows Slate B players to
be able to win by announcement.
But there are a few questions that arise here. Since rules are not
followed in spirit, Rule 2580 might be ambiguous.
There are two factors that I will list here. The first in individuality.
One interpretation (the "set" interpretation) of this is that the set of
Slate A players cannot win if there is a mechanism for Slate B players
to. In this case, all Slate A players can announce that they win, but it
might not work if you're criminal.
Another interpretation (the "individual" interpretation) of this is that
each the set of Slate A players cannot win if and only if all the Slate
B players can.
The other is clusivity.
One interpretation of this argument (the "exclusive" interpretation) is
that if the set of Slate N players, where N is a valid slate, cannot
win, and a person's set of slates includes N, e may not win since one
of eir slates cannot win.
The other interpretation (the "inclusive" interpretation) would be that
as long as one of a player's slates can win, e can win.
In the same message that I described these factors, I included the
following table. The set of pairs in each square is who can win.
set individual
------------- -------------------
exclusive (B,C) (A,B),(B,C),(C,A)
inclusive (A,B),(B,C) (A,B),(B,C),(C,A)
I believe that in lieu of rules describing the complexities of such a
system, the most straightforward, and therefore the naturally assumed
interpretation, should be the most correct.
In this case, I find the set inclusive interpretation to be the most
clear.
JUDGEMENTS
--------------
CFJ 3671: I judge FALSE.
CFJ 3672: I judge TRUE.
CFJ 3673: I judge FALSE.
====================================
Not part of the judgement, but these are the wins.
The list was taken from the Herald's after-action report.
> twg (B, C): I win the game.
Valid.
> CuddleBeam (A, C): I win the game too.
Valid.
> D. Margaux (A, B): I win the game too.
Valid.
> Trigon (B, C): I win the game.
Invalid.
> Trigon (B, C): I expunge one blot from myself and win the game.
Valid.
> G. (A, B) : I win the game.
Valid.
> ATMunn (A, C): I win the game.
Invalid.
> D. Margaux (A,B): 498 iterations of "I win the game by Round Robin." /
> "I win per Round Robin." except 1 in the middle was
> a Different Thing.
Valid, but very sketchy regardless.
> D. Margaux (A,B): I win by Round Robin.
Valid.
Please notify me of errors. I'm still new at CFJs.
*** 3672 judgement by D. Margaux:
>From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
>3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
>October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
>by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
>expungement of Trigon's blot."
I issue a cabinet order of certiorari to assign CFJ 3672 to myself.
I judge CFJ 3672 TRUE for the reasons described in the arguements of
Trigon and myself copied in the emails below.
*** 3674 context:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one
intent to perform a dependent action."
Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ
1460, an action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort"
is not required to determine what the action is. To determine exactly
what actions G. took here, one would need to carefully read each of
the messages sent to the public fora in the last 14 days, forming a
list of the intents to perform dependent actions in those messages
(including any and all inconspicuous or obfuscated such intents), and
evaluate which of those meet the criteria listed in G.'s message. I
believe this is "unreasonably excessive".
-twg
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:43 PM, Kerim Aydin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I vote AGAINST proposals 8105 and 8107.
> > I vote FOR proposals 8106, 8108, 8109 and 8110.
>
> hmmm on 8107 vote there.
>
> I object to all intents to perform actions without N objections
> (for all values of N) that have been announced by people other
> than myself in the last 14 days.
>
> (I don't think this catches anything legit, but if so lmk and
> I'll remove my objection).
***3667 context:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I intend to win by apathy without objection
AND I OBJECT
To: Agora Business <[email protected]>
I just wrote:
> We're in trouble if we start punishing people for expressing opinions.
In fact, let's demonstrate that.
I point the Finger at twg for misleading Agora in stating there are many
things I did not object to at that particular moment.
[If not referring to a dependent action, to "object" is to express an
opinion of disapproval, by definition. It is *more* of a lie for someone
to tell Agora that my opinion can or cannot be false, then it is for me to
express said opinion.]
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by publishing
> the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are clearly many
> things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as a player of
> Agora, which e could easily remedy by deregistering.
>
> I expunge my blot, while we're on the subject.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh for crying out loud. I object to everything. To everything, literally.
> > I object.
> >
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > > Gaelan—winning the game would break your pledge! It would allow the PM to
> > > appoint you to an office (speaker).
> > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:18 AM Gaelan Steele [email protected] wrote:
> > >
> > > > I do the action incorporated in my modification of the title.
> > > > Gaelan
> > > >
> > > > > On Oct 22, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Rebecca [email protected] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Because everyone else is doing it i do the action incorporated in the
> > > > > title
> > > > > for memes
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
***3667 gratuitous arguements of D. Margaux:
> On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by publishing
> the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are clearly many
> things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as a player of
> Agora, which e could easily remedy by deregistering.
Very interesting! Tentatively, I think this does not violate No Faking
for two reasons:
(1) It doesn’t appear to be made with intent to deceive.
(2) “objecting” is not a statement of fact, but a speech-act in the
game. It’s not obvious to me that such speech-actions, if knowingly
falsely made, are “statements” and “lies” under Rule 2471. A
statement is a proposition with a truth value; “I object” is a game
action that may be EFFECTIVE or not to achieve a game outcome.
Those are just my initial and very tentative thoughts. Happy to
consider any arguments anyone else has before deciding.
***3667 more gratuitous arguements of D. Margaux:
On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
> opinion.
After some more thought—maybe an INEFFECTIVE action could also be a
“lie” if it is intended to deceive.
For example, what if a player with a zombie announces an INEFFECTIVE
bid in a zombie auction (“I bid 100 coins”), in an attempt to mislead
other players into overpaying or not bidding altogether. That’s a
false statement—no bid was placed. If it was intentionally misleading,
couldn’t that be a violation of No Faking?
The Rule excludes intents, but not actions, perhaps implying that
actions could be lies governed by No Faking.
Here there seems to be no intent to mislead on either G or twg’s part.
But it is possible that an INEFFECTIVE objection could be false and
intentionally misleading, in which case it maybe would violate No
Faking.
***3667 gratuitous arguements from Trigon:
Perhaps e is announcing an intent to change eir position on everything,
including, for example, eir player status.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:06 D. Margaux <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by
> publishing the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are
> clearly many things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as
> a player of Agora, which e could easily remedy by deregistering.
>
> Very interesting! Tentatively, I think this does not violate No Faking for
> two reasons:
>
> (1) It doesn’t appear to be made with intent to deceive.
>
> (2) “objecting” is not a statement of fact, but a speech-act in the game.
> It’s not obvious to me that such speech-actions, if knowingly falsely made,
> are “statements” and “lies” under Rule 2471. A statement is a proposition
> with a truth value; “I object” is a game action that may be EFFECTIVE or
> not to achieve a game outcome.
>
> Those are just my initial and very tentative thoughts. Happy to consider
> any arguments anyone else has before deciding.
*** 3676 judge Murphy's arguements:
G. wrote:
> I CFJ, barring D. Margaux:
> D. Margaux won by apathy in the message referred to in evidence.
[this was later identified as CFJ 3676 and assigned to me]
> Evidence:
>
> Message in question:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039320.html
>
> Original intent:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039261.html
>
>
> Judge's arguments:
[caller's arguments, rather]
> I don't think something that's within a reply, within parentheses,
> in quotations, meets the standard of clarity for an action intent.
>
>
>
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>> So, here’s a description of the most recent wins/attempted wins:
>>
>> The most recent attempted win was this message, where I tried to win by
>> apathy:
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039320.html
>> I think that that buried intent maybe worked—the intent was clearly
>> labeled a “new msg” with that specific date, rather than part of the history
>> that it was embedded in. I actually don’t think there’s an open CFJ about
>> that.
I accept the caller's arguments and judge FALSE. In particular,
D. Margaux intentionally used a misleading form factor that causes some
mail readers to hide some or all of the relevant text by default, and
was presumably aware of same. This is a concrete step beyond merely
burying a separate paragraph in the middle of a long report.
*** 3677 Judge twg's arguements:
everything. To everything, literally. I object.'
========================================================================
Caller: D. Margaux
Barred: G.
Judge: twg
Judgement: FALSE
========================================================================
History:
Called by D. Margaux: 24 Oct 2018 18:40 UTC
Assigned to twg: 27 Oct 2018 01:27 UTC
Judged FALSE by twg: [as of this message]
========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by
> publishing the patently false statement in the quoted message. There
> are clearly many things that e does not object to - for example, eir
> status as a player of Agora, which e could easily remedy by
> deregistering.
>
> I expunge my blot, while we're on the subject.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ------- Original Message -------
> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh for crying out loud. I object to everything. To everything, literally.
> > I object.
> >
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Very interesting! Tentatively, I think this does not violate No Faking
for two reasons:
(1) It doesn’t appear to be made with intent to deceive.
(2) “objecting” is not a statement of fact, but a speech-act in the
game. It’s not obvious to me that such speech-actions, if knowingly
falsely made, are “statements” and “lies” under Rule 2471. A
statement is a proposition with a truth value; “I object” is a game
action that may be EFFECTIVE or not to achieve a game outcome.
Those are just my initial and very tentative thoughts. Happy to
consider any arguments anyone else has before deciding.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from Trigon:
Perhaps e is announcing an intent to change eir position on everything,
including, for example, eir player status.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from G.:
Interesting. R2124 governs "objections to dependent actions". Nothing in the
rules says anything about objections to non-dependent actions.
I have no idea if such things are INEFFECTIVE acts, or simply statements of
opinion.
If taken as Acts, such objections are not R2125 restricted (don't fit any of
the categories that make an action regulated). Therefore, they fall under
the final clause of R2125, with a higher power than No Faking:
The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
"Proscribe" means to prohibit, forbid, etc... in game terms, making something
ILLEGAL proscribes it. So the rules SHALL NOT be interpreted such that
this is illegal.
If taken as statements with no legal effect, to object is to "express one's
disapproval" of something. This is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
We're in trouble if we start punishing people for expressing opinions.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from G.:
I point the Finger at twg for misleading Agora in stating there are many
things I did not object to at that particular moment.
[If not referring to a dependent action, to "object" is to express an
opinion of disapproval, by definition. It is *more* of a lie for someone
to tell Agora that my opinion can or cannot be false, then it is for me to
express said opinion.]
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from D. Margaux:
After some more thought—maybe an INEFFECTIVE action could also be a
“lie” if it is intended to deceive.
For example, what if a player with a zombie announces an INEFFECTIVE
bid in a zombie auction (“I bid 100 coins”), in an attempt to mislead
other players into overpaying or not bidding altogether. That’s a
false statement—no bid was placed. If it was intentionally misleading,
couldn’t that be a violation of No Faking?
The Rule excludes intents, but not actions, perhaps implying that
actions could be lies governed by No Faking.
Here there seems to be no intent to mislead on either G or twg’s part.
But it is possible that an INEFFECTIVE objection could be false and
intentionally misleading, in which case it maybe would violate No
Faking.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from G.:
So first, No Faking explicitly equates knowingly doing INEFFECTIVE actions
with lying:
> (or, in the case of an action, not to be effective)
which implies that "not to be effective" is qualitatively different enough
from a "lie" so that it has to be specified as counting as Faking. But we
do equate those.
Second, you picked an interesting example. We actually had a rash of that
sort of bidding in 2017 when there were cases it was better to stop an auction
then let someone else win it. Further, there were several scams/bugs for the
auction rule.
It came down to it's VERY hard to convince someone you were lying about
*future* plans, and a bid is a future promise to pay. We had things like
"It's not a lie, because there's maybe a 1% chance I can work a legal scam
to pay". Compounded by the fact that, at least once, such a scam was pulled
off.
Right now there's this in the auction rules, explicitly, as a result:
A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction.
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from Gaelan:
This raises an interesting question: can you get around No Faking by
doing something that appears to do something, but due to a technicality,
turns out to be unregulated? Would No Faking even cover that in the
first place? If not, should it?
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from G.:
No Faking prohibits lying, for a specific definition of "lying" that
includes "not doing something that appears to do something" if you're
doing that to mislead.
Since lying is prohibited, the rules "limit" its performance, so it is
regulated under R2125:
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance;
Maybe?
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from Gaelan:
But, AFIAK, unregulated actions aren’t INEFFECTIVE, they’re just
meaningless. No Faking only cares about things that are INEFFECTIVE.
Therefore, No Faking doesn’t prohibit unregulated actions.
Now that I think about it, No Faking says “believed…not to be effective”
lowercase. Is that different from “not to be EFFECTIVE”?
========================================================================
Gratuitous Arguments from G.:
If it "appears to do something", and doesn't do that something, then it's lying,
right? If the thing it appears to do would *otherwise* be unregulated (i.e.
without the No Faking rule), lying about doing it makes it regulated (because
lying is regulated by No Faking).
An example: sending a private message to someone is Unregulated. However,
if you make a public post: "I just sent a private message to G." when you
didn't really, that's a lie, and telling that lie is regulated. (If you have
an example of what you're saying, that might help?)
For effective vs. EFFECTIVE, I think this is where "provide guidance" in
R2152 is relevant.
========================================================================
Judge twg's Arguments:
Rule 2471/1 is very specific that a statement is a lie only if it was
"made with the intent to mislead", regardless of its truth or falsity.
It seems clear to this court that this was not the case for the message
referenced by the caller. Several people interpreted it as a joke - for
example, Ørjan, who responded with a Truly Hideous Pun - and the
defendant, G., did not gain any material standing in Agora as a result
of the statement. Although eir intent is of course inherently unknowable,
common sense indicates the defendant is NOT GUILTY of lying, and that
this CFJ is therefore FALSE.
The Judge acknowledges that this is at odds with eir original assertion,
via Pointed Finger, that the defendant was GUILTY. This apparent
discrepancy was caused by the Judge's poor memory of the rule in
question and failure to re-read it before casting aspersions. The Judge
is Extremely Sorry and hereby awards the defendant a Gray Ribbon in
recompense.
========================================================================
*** 3678 context
original message:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg32931.html
CFJ called:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg32933.html
*** 3678 Judge Murphy's arguements:
D. Margaux wrote:
On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <[email protected]> wrote:
I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
Rule 1742 (Contracts) doesn't require agreeing to a contract to be
public, just intent that it be binding and rules-governed. Gaelan stated
"choice of forum is intentional" but gave no other indication that e was
merely setting up a hypothetical case for discussion, but instead
appeared to be attempting to set up an actual case so that its
effectiveness could be tested via CFJ, with a small enough amount on the
line (a single one-coin transfer) that e would not suffer significant
economic disadvantage if it was ruled effective. Also, to the best of my
knowledge, there was nothing unusual or non-obviously ineffective about
twg's response in a-b.
TRUE.
Evidence:
Gaelan's
offerhttps://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2018-October/052596.html
twg's
acceptancehttps://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039473.html
*** 3679 Judge G.'s arguements:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to
> any announced intents to Demand Resignation, then Agora is not
> satisfied with those intents and an attempt to Demand Resignation would
> be INEFFECTIVE.”
CFJ 3679 Judgement
The 'Demanding Resignation' procedure in R2472 is entirely by
announcement: a player can do it "by announcement" if e "announced
intent" in a specific time window. The only connection with R1728 or
R2124 is a procedural similarity, and the use of the term "intent" which
is used in the common-language sense ("intent" itself is not given an
explicit, reserved definition in the rules). As for the procedural
similarity, it is not exact: in particular, Agora does not need to be
"satisfied" with the intent for the action to be performed, so R2124
does not apply to this procedure. FALSE.
[This second one was tough: I started out thinking the opposite to
this judgement then realized the implications of that. So this could
certainly use some review].
> I CFJ barring twg: “A player CAN object more than once to a dependent
> action if e has not ever withdrawn an objection to that dependent
> action.”
***3680 Judge G.'s arguements:
CFJ 3680 Judgement
R2124 reads in part:
> An Objector to a
> dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
> (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
> perform the action.
This actually has two specific actions:
1. publicly posting an objection;
2. becoming an Objector to a dependent action.
and you do #2 by doing #1.
Later in the Rule, there are consequences for whether or not the Speaker
has "objected to" something in the past 24 hours. But does "objecting
to" something equate to #1, "publicly posting an objection", that can be
done more than once, or does it equate to #2, "becoming an Objector?",
which can only be done once? (because after you've become an objector,
posting another objection doesn't change that status).
At first glance it seems obvious that "objecting to" is equivalent to
"publicly posting an objection", just due to straightforward language
usage. However, in a parliamentary context, "objecting to" is a strict
procedural term that only counts if it changes the legal status (i.e. it
only counts if it makes you an Objector, otherwise you're just out of
order or repeating yourself or something). So in an outside-of-Agora
context, either interpretation is possible. While common-language
generally implies the first, and we are biased towards common-lanugage
interpretation in general, the context of the Rules in question - a
formal approval procedure - means the parliamentary context is also
plausible.
What it comes down to, inside Agora, is Regulation.
Quite simply, "publicly posting an objection" to something is wholly
Unregulated. It's a speech act, in the real world, if you say you've
objected to something, you've done it. Nothing in the rules limits or
constrains your ability to do it, you can do it for anything - you can
publicly post objections to proposals, rules, moves, anything you like.
And it's VITALLY IMPORTANT that it be unregulated in the current system,
if Dependent Actions are to work. Because the rules nowhere explicitly
say "a player CAN publicly post an objection". So if "publicly posting
an objection" was taking to be regulated, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to do
it because the rules don't say how you CAN do it (R2125).
However, "becoming an Objector to a dependent action" *is* regulated,
because R2124 states how you do it (by publicly posting an objection).
So what about "objecting to" something - regulated or unregulated?
Well, R2532 says you can't do it for Zombies, and R2124 says you can't
do it after you've withdrawn the same sort of response. So it is
Regulated.
So if we equate "objecting to" with "publicly posting an objection", the
thing that needs to stay Unregulated to work, becomes Regulated. And
that means publicly posting an objection generally CANNOT be done,
because the rules don't supply a method for doing so. And the whole
basis of dependent actions breaks down - dangerously.
Not a good idea.
Equating "objecting to" to "becoming an Objector" doesn't have this
issue. They're both Regulated, and everything works fine.
So since both readings of "objecting to" are plausible (one reading in
common language, one in parliamentary domains), and one reading causes
massive danger and breakage, we prefer the reading that doesn't. So
"objecting to" in R2124 means "becoming an Objector". Which, once
you've done it once, cannot be done a second time.
So once a Speaker becomes an Objector, further public postings of eir
objections do not force a delay in the action, because e has *already*
objected to it (become an Objector) once.
FALSE.
*** 3681 context from G.:
Ah, you're right. I used this in a different way last year and thought
we fixed that definition.
I favor this CFJ.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 2018, at 11:20 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >> From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
> >>
> >>> 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
> >>> October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
> >>> by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
> >>> expungement of Trigon's blot."
> >>
> >> I issue a cabinet order of certiorari to assign CFJ 3672 to myself.
> >
> > Er, you need to recuse Trigon first, right? Otherwise it's not an open
> > case.
> >
> > That sort of settles this issue of competing judges. Regardless of PM
> > status, you need to act as Arbitor to recuse Trigon before you attempt
> > to assign to yourself.
>
> I think I disagree. The case open and assigned. Under Rule 991:
> > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or assigned
> > exactly one judgement.
>
> Certiorari doesn’t require the case to be unassigned, just that it is open:
> > Certiorari (Arbitor): The Prime Minister assigns emself as judge of a
> > specified open case.
>
>
*** 3681 Judgement from G.:
I judge 3681 DISMISS.
Arguments: This is for the sole purpose of preventing D. Margaux
from using Certiorari to grab this judgement after 1-Nov (I might
not finish the judgement before then). I'll file a motion and
reconsider and assign an actual judgement within the time limit for
doing so.
[It doesn't benefit em at all to grab this case, but you never
know who's going to get clever about it! :P ]
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> D. Margaux wrote:
> > I CFJ this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to assign CFJ
> > 3672 to emself was EFFECTIVE.”
>
>
> G. wrote:
>
> > I favor this CFJ.
>
> The above is CFJ 3681. I assign it to G.
*** 3682 context from twg:
Hmm, interesting grey area.
I consent to be bound by this contract. I act on Gaelan's behalf to transfer
one coin to myself.
I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
-twg
------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:28 PM, Gaelan Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
> I consent to be bound by the contract below with any 1 or more other players
> who at any time similarly express their consent to be bound by the contract.
> [Thanks to D. Margaux for the wording]
>
> {
>
> Any party to this contract may act on Gaelan’s behalf to transfer one coin to
> emselves. Once this is done once, this contract becomes void.
>
> }
>
> The choice of forum is intentional.
>
> Gaelan
*** 3683 (formerly CFJ 3679) and 3684 (formerly CFJ 3680) judgements
from Trigon:
== Context message ==
1 Nov 2018, V.J. Rada:
> I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson.
>
> The pledge I made above is true.
>
> I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking.
== Callers' messages ==
1 Nov 2018, ATMunn:
> I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the
> below quoted message."
1 Nov 2018, twg:
> And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the
> crime of Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well
> cover all possible bases.
== Arguments ==
1 Nov 2018, G.:
> There may be a meta-faking here.
>
> Pledges are to perform or not perform actions, pledging that you are
> someone or something isn't pledging an action (yes, "to be" is a verb,
> but I still argue that a state of being isn't an action in this
> sense).
>
> So this fails to make a pledge, so is INEFFECTIVE. So if e was trying
> to fool people into thinking this was an effective pledge, that could
> be Faking.
== Relevant Rules ==
Rule 2471/1 (Power=1)
No Faking
A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A
statment is a lie if its publisher either knew or believed it to
be not to be true at the time e published it (or, in the case of
an action, not to be effective), and it was made with the intent
to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
falsity of the whole is what is significant.
The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal
announcement of intent is never a lie.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)
Pledges
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.
If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
appropriate fine.
== Judgement of CFJ 3680 ==
The Pledges rule doesn't use all that much terminology, to be honest, so
it is a bit hard to check where the rules lie here. From my reading,
V.J.'s claim to have made a pledge is INEFFECTIVE since e did not pledge
to "perform (or refrain from performing)" any actions. Since e did not
actually create the pledge, the next statement affirming the
truthfulness of the pledge is also INEFFECTIVE. As there is no pledge,
V.J. did not commit the crime of Oathbreaking.
I judge FALSE.
== Judgement of CFJ 3679 ==
Since, per CFJ 3680, the pledge mentioned does not exist, the statement
affirming the pledge's truthfulness is also INEFFECTIVE. INEFFECTIVE
statements are not lies.
The next paragraph also contains no lies.
I also believe G.'s arguments to be irrelevent to the case, since they
involve an abstraction of the actual statements, and No Faking does not
allow people to be punished for such things.
I judge FALSE.
--
Trigon
*** 3685 (formerly 3681) and 3686 (formerly 3682) judgements from D. Margaux:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Judgements in CFJs 3685 and 3686 (formerly CFJs 3681 and 3682)
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In Agora, the phrase “dependent action” is a term of art that refers to the
methods specified in Rule 1728 (“Dependent Actions”). In ordinary English, that
phrase has a more generic sense of an action predicated upon some condition.
Although context will determine which meaning of “dependent action” applies in
any particular instance, the default presumption is that it is used as a term
of art. Most often Agorans use the phrase in that specialized, term-of-art
sense. Indeed, it has taken a long time for this CFJ to arise precisely because
Agorans generally know that “dependent action” has a specialized meaning. It is
especially likely that the specialized meaning applies when an Agoran uses the
phrase “dependent action” in connection with certain other specified phrases in
Rule 1728 (such as “support” or “object”).
Conceivably, in some contexts, a player might use the phrase “dependent action”
in the more generic sense of any contingent action. But that should not be the
default assumption, and game custom does not indicate that Agorans use the
phrase in that way unless there are context clues that make it clear that this
generic sense is meant.
Performing an action with N support is a dependent action, under both the
specialized and generic senses of that phrase. CFJ 3684 is therefore TRUE.
Performing an action on behalf is perhaps always a dependent action in the
generic sense, but not in the more specialized sense. Because CFJ 3685 does not
specify which sense of the phrase it uses, I presume it uses the term of art
sense, and judge it FALSE.
