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)
==========================================================================
