OFF: [Assessor] Revised Resolution of Proposal 8989
RESOLUTION OF PROPOSAL 8989 === IDTitle Result - 8989 Rice disarmament REJECTED I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. The quorum for all below decisions was 5. VOTING STRENGTHS Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. #: player has voting strength 3 $: player has voting strength 4 %: player has voting strength 5 ^: player has voting strength 6 &: player has voting strength 7 *: player has voting strength 8 PROPOSALS = PROPOSAL 8989 (Rice disarmament) AUTHOR: Janet CLASS: ORDINARY FOR (2): Janet*, juan$ AGAINST (3): Beokirby, ais523^, snail^ PRESENT (2): Murphy%, nix$ BALLOTS: 7 AI (F/A): 12/15 (AI=1.0) POPULARITY: -0.143 OUTCOME: REJECTED [ ais523: Conditional resolved: ais523 has at least 1 rice ]
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 23 Jun 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4044 Assigned to 4st Due Fri 30 Jun 2023 17:50:24 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4037 snail 4039 Murphy 4041 Janet 4032 ais523 4043 G. 4044 4st OPEN CASES --- 4044 Assigned to 4st [Due Fri 30 Jun 2023 17:50:24] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4044 On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4043 Judged FALSE by G. [Tue 20 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4043 Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. 4042 Judged DISMISS by G. [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4042 At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on that proposal resolved to PRESENT. 4041 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4041 In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". 4040 Judged FALSE by Janet [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4040 In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 4039 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 04 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4039 I currently own the recursion stone. 4038 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sun 18 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4038 The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. 4037 Judged FALSE by snail [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4037 In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some community. 4036 Judged FALSE by snail [Tue 13 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4036 In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no community. 4035 Judged FALSE by G. [Sun 04 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4035 Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir signature. 4034 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 05 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4034 G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so that plan currently does not have G's signature. 4033 Judged IRRELEVANT by nix [Tue 30 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4033 There is a currently registered player named “blob”. 4032 Judged TRUE by ais523 [Fri 16 Jun 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4032 There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot [Wed 31 May 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4030 Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4044 Assigned to 4st
The below CFJ is 4044. I assign it to 4st.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4044
=== CFJ 4044 ===
On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game.
==
Caller:Janet
Judge: 4st
==
History:
Called by Janet: 23 Jun 2023 16:28:37
Assigned to 4st: [now]
==
Caller's Arguments:
This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the
continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect,
nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a
specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not
have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of
"having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must
therefore always use the current definition in force.
Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous
action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was
not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using
either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519,
yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated
action of any form.
R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice
Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under
either the current or former version of the rule.
Caller's Evidence:
//
ID: 8988
Title: Rice rewrite
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors: snail
Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole:
{
The Ricemastor is an office.
Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly
restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is
owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed.
An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week,
specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set).
When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set
gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice
down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list
of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy
it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan.
An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An
active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a
contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir
signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each
rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it.
A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs,
the following happen in order:
* The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the
earliest created), if any, is harvested.
* All rice plans are destroyed.
Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2
rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice
and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner
three times, this rule immediately repeals itself.
}
[
Changes:
- Generally cleaned up wording
- Handle rice at Lost and Found
- Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case
where a person is in both the up and down sets)
- Use "CAN" for enabling
- Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than
"consent"
- Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures
- Removed Fancy Caps
]
//
Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
The Rice Game
The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
has created by announcement.
A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
- If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
Rice Plan is Harvested.
- If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures,
the one that was created earliest is Harvested.
- In all other cases, nothing happens.
And then all Rice Plans are destroyed
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4043 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4043
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4043 ===
Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested.
==
Caller:4st
Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by 4st:08 Jun 2023 22:08:10
Assigned to G.: 15 Jun 2023 18:09:42
Judged FALSE by G.: 20 Jun 2023 18:27:42
==
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments FOR: G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), and 4st's consent
didn't work or worked on both, so Yachay's plan was earliest and was tied
for most signatures, and was thus harvested.
Arguments PARADOX:
G did not withdraw their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a
paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested.
Yachay's plan would not have enough signatures if it were to be harvested,
and it would have enough signatures if it wasn't going to be harvested.
G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox
as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested, thus Yachay's
plan would now have enough signatures, and juan's plan would be tied for
first.
Arguments AGAINST: G did not withdraw eir consent, and 4st's consent either
didn't work or worked on both, so juan's plan was harvested.
--
Judge G.'s Arguments:
First, I've reviewed the Ricekeepor's report published here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017142.html
and in particular the Rice Plans and signatures for the Harvest Week
of 5-28 (see evidence below), and noticed no factual errors. CFJ 4032
found that rice plan consent generally functioned (unter the first
version of the rule) as one might expect, and CFJ 4034 found that G.
consented to Juan's Rice Plan but did not withdraw consent. So the
final question is interpretation of this announcement by 4st:
> I consent to all rice plans that will not be harvested.
In general, indirect specification of entities or sets (like "I do
this for all X that meet conditions Y") are subject to the same
standards of communication as conditional actions - the specification
of the set must be determinate at the time of communication, otherwise
the communication simply fails to communicate and does nothing. The
specification that 4st used was clear future tense - it didn't say "I
consent to all plans that are currently not ahead" but "I consent to
all plans that will in the future not be ahead". Future information
such as this is indeterminate, so there was no reasonably clear
consent to sign any plan at the time that message was sent.
Now, it's *possible* that the Rice rule allowed a kind of continual
evaluation of this statement, such that some plan was signed by 4st
whenever that statement became determinate. For various reasons I
don't think that forward continual evaluation works, but even if it
*did* work, it fails here. Because there's no time when "will not be
harvested" is actually resolvable. Up to the instant of the
beginning-of-week deadline, the "will be harvested" is indeterminate,
so consent is not reasonably clear. At the instant the deadline
passes though, the rice plans platonically become "harvested" or "not
harvested". So there is no actual instant in between where "will be
harvested" becomes determinate, and 4sts set of "rice plans that will
not be harvested" is never sufficiently determine to express consent
for any plan.
Therefore, Juan's rice plan was harvested, not Yachay's. I find FALSE.
Judge G.'s Evidence
RICE PLANS
==
Section 1: Harvest of Week 5-28
Created: 2023-05-28 by snail
Up: {active players at time of creation}
Down: {}
Signatures: beokirby, snail, Janet, 4st
Created: 2023-05-27 by G.
Up: {G., Janet}
Down: {4st}
Signatures: G., Janet, 4st
Created: 2023-05-26 by Janet
Up: {}
Down: {}
Signatures: Janet, ais523, 4st
Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
Signatures: ais523, juan, (G, if G hasn't withdrawn eir signature), Janet,
(4st, if this plan will not be harvested)
Created: 2023-05-22 by Yachay
Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
Signatures: Yachay, beokirby, snail, (4st, if this plan will not be
harvested)
==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4042 Judged DISMISS by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4042
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4042 ===
At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran
decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on
that proposal resolved to PRESENT.
==
Caller:ais523
Judge: G.
Judgement: DISMISS
==
History:
Called by ais523: 05 Jun 2023 00:19:23
Assigned to G.: 12 Jun 2023 22:58:01
Judged DISMISS by G.: 13 Jun 2023 18:12:54
==
Caller's Arguments:
Rule 2127 requires a conditional vote to be "determinate" in
order to avoid evaluating to PRESENT. Rule 2518 requires a value to be
reasonably determinable from information reasonably available to be
determinate.
Were my rice holdings actually determinate at this point? There has
been mass confusion (and several CFJs) regarding how the rice rules
actually work, with at least two CFJs unresolved at the time of the
attempted resolution. The Ricemastor is inactive, and has missed
reports. Some people have taken to attempting to sign Rice Plans using
lots of different wordings in the same message, in the apparent hope
that at least one of them will work.
Further evidence is that the Assessor appeared to be in sufficient
doubt about my Rice holdings that e immediately CoEd eir own
resolution, referring the situation to CFJ – this implies that it was
unreasonable for em to determine my Rice holding, otherwise e would
probably have done so. (In general, it seems that although it's
reasonable to tie a report to a CFJ outcome, it is unreasonable to do
the same for a conditional vote.)
--
Judge G.'s Arguments:
As per R2518/1, a value is indeterminate if it "CANNOT be reasonably
determined (without circularity or paradox) from information
reasonably available". As per R2127/11, the determinacy of
conditional votes is calculated as per conditions at the time the
voting period ends. Importantly, the verb "determined" is an active
verb that implies the determination is being conducted by persons
(thinking beings) - and that determination is a physical/mental
process that takes time. Taken literally, it is physically impossible
for anybody to make the determination at (exactly) the end of the
voting period, because given email delays, the full set of information
isn't practically known until at least a few minutes after the
deadline passes. To make sense of these rules, then, is to assume
that the "information reasonably available" must be present (or en
route with an early enough datestamp) at the end of the voting period,
but that "determination" is an allowable interpretive process - e.g.
by the Assessor - that can occur after the voting period has closed.
To this end, the caller has erred in eir arguments, in noting that the
CoE and CFJ calling are evidence of indeterminacy. Rather, they are
part of the working determination process, not evidence of its
failure. CFJs must be taken to be an acceptable part of the
"reasonable determination" process occurring after the deadline, or
they would fail to set up a "reasonable expectation" of controversy
resolution as mandated by R217/12. So the Assessor calling a CFJ is
simply exporting the formal responsibility for determination to a
judge. While it is unfortunate that judicial delays may drag out the
determination process, R217 confirms (essentially defines) that these
CFJ delays are still within the timeline for "reasonably" determining
a result or resolving a controversy about the interpretation of a
result.
CFJ 4032 has been called that questions the results of the first Rice
Harvest. CFJ 4043 is questioning the result of the second Rice
Harvest. If neither of those CFJs finds the situation indeterminate,
then that would answer ("reasonably determine") the status of ais523's
vote at the time the voting period ended. This current CFJ could be
trivially revisited when those CFJs are judged, but until then, in
deference to those CFJs, I DISMISS this case.
==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4041 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4041 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4041 === In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:04 Jun 2023 13:31:51 Motion to Extend filed: 11 Jun 2023 05:23:35 Judged FALSE by Janet:18 Jun 2023 23:36:19 == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? -- Judge Janet's Arguments: These cases are regarding the registration of a player who calls emself "blob". Because a former and well-known player went by the name "Blob", this has resulted in confusion about how officers should refer to either player in reports. The question before this court is how these names are to be interpreted in a short-term ephemeral report about current players (CFJ 4040) and a long-term historical document about an unbounded set of persons (CFJ 4041). Agora is a game that highly values its history. As such, many former players, even from long ago, are frequently referenced in reports. The older Blob is no exception. E is referenced every month in the Rulekeepor's Herald's, and Registrar's monthly reports. As such, most current and long-standing players are aware of the existence of Blob and, before the registration of the newer blob, would have recognized the name as a historical player. However, reports are not just for experienced players. The purpose of a report is primarily to inform all interested persons, including new players and onlookers who lack historical context, and secondarily to act as a historical record. Both of these purposes demand clarity and unambiguity, as prior cases on reports have found. Here I focus on the first purpose, as it is more tangible. Let us consider a hypothetical new player that has acquired the most recent version of each report. Such a player would most certainly conclude that the "blob" and "Blob" referenced in the two reports at issue are the same person. (As to the casing difference, even the most perceptive and inquisitive new player might fail to notice the difference, and those that do would likely ignore it.) Thus, a new player reading the reports at issue would be actively mislead into believing one version of the gamestate, while a veteran player would read the reports in a different, accurate way using their historical knowledge. This is confusion, not communication. The reports have failed in their primary duty to inform. Therefore, at least the referenced Herald's monthly report must be ambiguous in its reference to "Blob". However, this leaves the question of whether the referenced Herald's Weekly report is ambiguous in its reference to "blob". Both a veteran player and a new player will come to the conclusion that the "blob" referenced there is the same person listed as "blob" in the most recent Registrar's report. It has also been suggested that the fact that the Herald's weekly
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4040 Judged FALSE by Janet
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4040 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4040 === In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". == Caller:G. Judge: Janet Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57 Assigned to Janet:04 Jun 2023 13:30:49 Motion to Extend filed: 11 Jun 2023 05:23:35 Judged FALSE by Janet:18 Jun 2023 23:36:19 == [Linked to CFJ 4041] Caller's Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Caller's Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? -- Judge Janet's Arguments: These cases are regarding the registration of a player who calls emself "blob". Because a former and well-known player went by the name "Blob", this has resulted in confusion about how officers should refer to either player in reports. The question before this court is how these names are to be interpreted in a short-term ephemeral report about current players (CFJ 4040) and a long-term historical document about an unbounded set of persons (CFJ 4041). Agora is a game that highly values its history. As such, many former players, even from long ago, are frequently referenced in reports. The older Blob is no exception. E is referenced every month in the Rulekeepor's Herald's, and Registrar's monthly reports. As such, most current and long-standing players are aware of the existence of Blob and, before the registration of the newer blob, would have recognized the name as a historical player. However, reports are not just for experienced players. The purpose of a report is primarily to inform all interested persons, including new players and onlookers who lack historical context, and secondarily to act as a historical record. Both of these purposes demand clarity and unambiguity, as prior cases on reports have found. Here I focus on the first purpose, as it is more tangible. Let us consider a hypothetical new player that has acquired the most recent version of each report. Such a player would most certainly conclude that the "blob" and "Blob" referenced in the two reports at issue are the same person. (As to the casing difference, even the most perceptive and inquisitive new player might fail to notice the difference, and those that do would likely ignore it.) Thus, a new player reading the reports at issue would be actively mislead into believing one version of the gamestate, while a veteran player would read the reports in a different, accurate way using their historical knowledge. This is confusion, not communication. The reports have failed in their primary duty to inform. Therefore, at least the referenced Herald's monthly report must be ambiguous in its reference to "Blob". However, this leaves the question of whether the referenced Herald's Weekly report is ambiguous in its reference to "blob". Both a veteran player and a new player will come to the conclusion that the "blob" referenced there is the same person listed as "blob" in the most recent Registrar's report. It has also been suggested that the fact that the Herald's weekly report is
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4036 Judged FALSE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4036
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4036 ===
In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not empty, but belongs to no
community.
==
Caller:ais523
Judge: snail
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13
Assigned to snail:04 Jun 2023 13:27:43
Judged FALSE by snail:13 Jun 2023 03:07:17
==
[Linked to CFJ 4037]
Caller's Evidence:
This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two
communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than
four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade.
The relevant part of the tournament regulations is:
{{{
If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is
empty.
Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one
letter token and one number token that correspond to that
location's coordinates.
If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to
any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community,
e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its
founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that
starts with a different first letter than any existing community
by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor
CAN and SHALL do so by announcement.
A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place
a tile that would found a new community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a
single community, that tile belongs to that community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to
different communities, a merger happens.
When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the
merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is
the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community
that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The
other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles
belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and
begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X
(rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an
investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that
community immediately before the merger divided by the total
number of investments that exist for that community and times the
number of investments for that community that player owns. The
acquired communities and all investments in all acquired
communities are destroyed.
}}}
Caller's Arguments:
The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a
player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single
community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged
community.
However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that
states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any
community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of
the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes
scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or
FALSE if G6 is part of Jade.
I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that
founding a new community by placing a tile not adjacent to any existing
communities causes the placed tile to become part of the community
founded that way. It seems plausible that such tiles would be part of
no community, although that would completely break the tournament (both
because there would be no way to score and because most of the moves
that have happened so far would be illegal). The second CFJ is checking
for the possibility that this has happened.
--
Judge snail's Arguments:
Unfortunately, I see nowhere stating in these regulations that a tile
begins belonging to a community at any point except when placed next to a
tile already in a community. When a player places their first tile, all
that happens is they found a new community, get an investment in it, and
become its founder. I don't see any text that says otherwise, so sadly, the
tournament is broken.
I judge CFJ 4037 FALSE, and recommend some sort of proposal to fix the
tournament.
I also judge CFJ 4036 FALSE, ("In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not
empty, but belongs to no community.") as the tile is in fact empty, since
ais523 already founded a community, which was
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4038 Judged FALSE by Murphy
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4038 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4038 === The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player. == Caller:Janet Judge: Murphy Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by Janet: 30 May 2023 21:27:23 Assigned to nix: 04 Jun 2023 13:29:00 nix recused: 06 Jun 2023 23:36:56 Assigned to Murphy: 14 Jun 2023 18:02:20 Judged FALSE by Murphy: 18 Jun 2023 21:03:30 == Caller's Evidence: On 5/22/23 15:07, juan via agora-official wrote: > PLAYERS > > Active players: 14/21 > > a Player Registered Last change Contact > - -- -- --- --- > + 4st 2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail dot com > + Aspen2022-11-04 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at > gmail dot com > + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw dot edu > + Janet2019-06-02 2021-02-03 agora at randomcat dot org > + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail dot com > + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 " yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com > + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at yahoo.co > dot uk > + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail dot com > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com > + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail dot com > + inalienableWright2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at mailfence > dot com > + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat dot br > + nix 2022-10-09 " agora at nullarch dot com > + snail2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail dot com > - Aced72022-10-19 2023-04-03 cadenomic at gmail dot com > - Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-04-03 gbs at canishe dot com > - Marb 2022-11-27 2023-04-03 marb at shabu dot town > - R. Lee 2023-01-31 2023-04-03 sarahestrange0 at gmail dot com > - Shy Owl 2022-10-07 2023-04-03 iamashyown at proton dot me > - omd 2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail dot com > - tb1482023-02-06 2023-04-03 tb148 at proton dot me -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: The Registrar's Report in question lists an email address for the person 'blob'. This email address does not match the email address associated with Blob in previous Registrar's Monthly Reports (around Jan 1 2023). Furthermore, the currently-registered blob, around the time of eir registration, had this (summarized) conversation in Discord: > snail 05/16/2023 8:00 PM > welcome! How did you find us? > > Murphy 05/16/2023 11:40 PM > Are you a mauve-colored blob, specifically? > > blob (@snail) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM > just found out about nomics somehow (through a "related articles" > wikipedia thing i believe) and thought that this looked pretty cool > > blob (@Murphy) 05/17/2023 4:38 PM > not specifically, no > > G. 05/17/2023 4:39 PM > welcome! Murphy's message on mauve is because we had someone nicknamed > Blob many years ago, and that was an in-joke with them. > > blob 05/17/2023 4:39 PM > ah, i see! i had to check my bio for a moment there, because muave is > my favorite color, and i thought it might be there xD I think that conversation establishes, to the preponderance of evidence, that the currently-registered blob is new to nomic, and unaware of various in-jokes concerning the original Blob. So I think this should be FALSE; though in particular, the disambiguation relies on the Registrar's Report including the email address as an annotation, so this CFJ doesn't really address who 'blob' refers to if the name is used in other reports without the additional annotation. -- Judge Murphy's Arguments: I accept the caller's arguments on all points and judge FALSE. ==
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4037 Judged FALSE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4037
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4037 ===
In the context of Commune, at least one tile belongs to some
community.
==
Caller:ais523
Judge: snail
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by ais523: 28 May 2023 23:25:13
Assigned to snail:04 Jun 2023 13:28:17
Judged FALSE by snail:13 Jun 2023 03:07:17
==
[Linked to CFJ 4036]
Caller's Evidence:
This week, I placed a tile at G6. It was adjacent to two
communities, Jade (with four tiles) at G7, and Emerald (with fewer than
four tiles) at F6. Emerald was thus merged into Jade.
The relevant part of the tournament regulations is:
{{{
If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is
empty.
Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one
letter token and one number token that correspond to that
location's coordinates.
If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to
any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community,
e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its
founder. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that
starts with a different first letter than any existing community
by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor
CAN and SHALL do so by announcement.
A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place
a tile that would found a new community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a
single community, that tile belongs to that community.
If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belongining to
different communities, a merger happens.
When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the
merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is
the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community
that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The
other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles
belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and
begin to belong to the acquiring community. Each player gains X
(rounded down) Accolades for each acquired community e had an
investment in, where X is the total tiles that belonged to that
community immediately before the merger divided by the total
number of investments that exist for that community and times the
number of investments for that community that player owns. The
acquired communities and all investments in all acquired
communities are destroyed.
}}}
--
Judge snail's Arguments:
Unfortunately, I see nowhere stating in these regulations that a tile
begins belonging to a community at any point except when placed next to a
tile already in a community. When a player places their first tile, all
that happens is they found a new community, get an investment in it, and
become its founder. I don't see any text that says otherwise, so sadly, the
tournament is broken.
I judge CFJ 4037 FALSE, and recommend some sort of proposal to fix the
tournament.
I also judge CFJ 4036 FALSE, ("In the context of Commune, tile G6 is not
empty, but belongs to no community.") as the tile is in fact empty, since
ais523 already founded a community, which was not destroyed.
I will note for future reference that "If a tile is placed adjacent to one
or more tiles belonging to a single community, that tile belongs to that
community." can still apply in a merger, which, if CFJ 4037 was true, would
mean the tournament works as intended. The tile would belong to each
community involved, and then since the acquired communities are destroyed,
only belong to the acquiring community.
Caller's Arguments:
The intention behind the tournament regulations is probably that, if a
player places a tile to merge two or more communities into a single
community, the tile that was placed becomes part of the new merged
community.
However, I can't find anything in the tournament regulations that
states that a tile placed to cause a merger becomes part of any
community. Does this imply that the tile is non-empty, but not part of
the resulting merged community? (This doesn't break much, but causes
scores to be slightly lower.) The first CFJ is TRUE in that case, or
FALSE if G6 is part of Jade.
I also note that the tournament regulations don't explicitly state that
founding a new community by placing a tile not
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4032 Judged TRUE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4032 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4032 === There are some persons right now who have more than 0 Rice. == Caller:Yachay Judge: ais523 Judgement: TRUE == History: Called by Yachay: 25 May 2023 19:17:23 Assigned to 4st: 25 May 2023 23:36:45 Judged TRUE by 4st: 27 May 2023 17:40:02 Motion to reconsider group-filed: 28 May 2023 03:15:50 4st recused: 08 Jun 2023 22:59:57 Assigned to ais523: 13 Jun 2023 18:42:28 Judged TRUE by ais523:16 Jun 2023 23:56:48 == Caller's Arguments: [none provided so far] -- Gratuitous Arguments by G. This CFJ was called on 25-May-23, when only one Rice Harvest had occurred, and Rule 2682/0 was in effect. The report in question is here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017077.html No factual errors have been noted in this report, in terms of who sent messages attempting to either make Rice Plans or to sign rice plans either via direct consent or contract. The question is wholly interpretive, in that all signatures allegedly applied to the Rice Plans were governed by this clause of R2682/0: > A Rice > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is > consenting to it. This clause is written passively, without our general standards like "CAN sign by announcement" etc. And R2519/2 covers consent for "actions" not continuous states so it's unclear how that applies. Basically, if signing Rice Plans works as generally intended by the rule's author, then this CFJ is true, with the persons with more than 0 rice indicated in that report. Judge 4st initially judged this CFJ and eir original judgement is included below, but a Motion to Reconsider was filed for that judgement, and 4st was later recused. The players supporting the motion to reconsider generally gave the reason that Judge 4st's arguments called "having a signature on a plan" a kind of "continuous action" that players were "continually agreeing to" which didn't generally match Agoran conceptions of actions as instantaneous events (sorry if this is a very coarse summary of the objections). Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e has created by announcement. A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that Rice Plan is Harvested. - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, the one that was created earliest is Harvested. - In all other cases, nothing happens. And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends. Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then e lose 1 Rice. If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in this manner three times, this rule repeals itself. Judge 4st's Arguments: Evidence: Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) The Rice Game The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, if e hasn't done so yet in the
