On 4/2/23 13:59, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below CFJ is 4019. I assign it to Janet.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4019
>
> === CFJ 4019 ===
>
> In this message, I had qualified players lift the First Speaker in
> a powerful dance around the fountain.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Juan
>
> Judge: Janet
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Juan: 27 Mar 2023 18:21:13
> Assigned to Janet:[now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> Juan wrote, to Agora-Business:
>> Forest Sweeney via agora-business [2023-03-27 08:56]:
>>> Here are some interesting reports you should go and look at. What did these
>>> offices do? What was in these reports? Some things have changed!
>>>
>>> In response to the Sun 24 Feb 2008 Conductor Report, I declare the ritual
>>> number as 10.
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg01091.html
>>> […]
>>>
>>> In response to
>>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06559.html
>>> I declare the ritual number as 15.
>>>
>>> I'm done for now. I'll be back later until someone inevitably
>>> doesn't like this and fixes the timeframes we can report on.
>>> :) It's just 1 point and this is a lot of work to dig up :P
>> For each natural number N from 16 to 41, I perform the following action:
>>
>> {
>> In response to the Nth ritual act ever performed, I declare the ritual
>> number to be N.
>> }
>>
>> I have qualified players lift the First Speaker in a powerful dance
>> around the fountain, thereby making it so all of em earn 1 radiance.
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Arguments FOR:
>
> The only issue here is whether the intent is clear and unambiguous, which
> ultimately will come down to some criterion of reasonable effort. The only
> information that needs to be verified is whether 1) there were at least 41
> ritual acts, and that 2) none of those have had a ritual number declared in
> response. Well, I posit that those two facts are patently obvious, even
> though it might be unreasonably hard to identify specifically which acts
> were those. But their identity, alas, is irrelevant.
>
> ==
Draft judgement in CFJ 4019:
{
Although the caller states that this case turns only on whether eir
attempts were sufficiently clear, it also depends on whether 4st's
purported declarations of the ritual number as 10 to 15 succeeded (at [0]).
I find that these purported declarations were not successful. R2680/1
phrases the definitions of ritual acts as ongoing and present tense.
Similarly, the enabling of declaring the ritual number is phrased as
present and ongoing. Thus, I find that the ENABLING of declaring a
ritual number attaches when the ritual act is performed and does not
apply retrospectively past when R2680 was enacted. Thus, the purported
declarations from 10 to 15 were referencing events that were not ritual
acts.
However, the caller raises the argument that R2680 does not require the
declaration of a ritual number to include a reference to a specific
event. I find that this is not correct. R2680's phrasing of "for each
ritual act" suggests that the declaration applies to a specific ritual
act, and thus the specification of the action must include the specific
ritual act. The caller's purported declarations even seem to accept
that, as they attempt to include a reference to a specific ritual act,
rather than just having a raw declaration.
Thus, I find that 4st's purported declarations from 10-15 were invalid
because they failed to specify the required ritual act.
Although this finding means that I do not need to reach the clarity of
caller's purported declarations from 16-41 (sine they are invalid due to
not being at most 1 greater than some previous declaration), I will
continue to resolve the controversy anyway.
Having found that a specific ritual act must be referenced for a
declaration to be valid, the question is now what communication standard
must be met. I find that the standard is equivalent to the normal
"specify" standard. The only clarity standard weaker than that in the
rules is used in R869 registration, which is explicitly and deliberately
weaker than "by announcement" (and includes "reasonably clearly and
reasonably unambiguously"). Given that the only weaker standard has
explicit and clear wording, I find that, under the "game custom" factor,
it is not reasonable to read in a weaker clarity standard than "specify".
Having found that specific ritual acts must be referenced and having
identified the clarity standard, suffice it to say
