On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 12:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > The below CFJ is 3895. I assign it to Aris. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3895 > > =============================== CFJ 3895 =============================== > > I have now more than 20 Victory Points. > > ========================================================================== > > Caller: Cuddlebeam > > Judge: Aris >
Here's a draft. Comments are welcome. -Aris --- DRAFT Judge's Arguments for CFJ 3895 The caller's arguments and evidence do an excellent job of explaining the situation, so I won't go over it again here. Players have raised three objections to CuddleBeam's actions. If any of them is correct, this CFJ is FALSE. First, "I attempt to transfer" could not count as a valid announcement of transference. Second, CuddleBeam could lack a method for performing the transfer. Third, 0 could be a natural number, causing eir 0 asset transfers not to be rounded up to 1. 1. Attempts to Transfer CuddleBeam said, for each other player, "I attempt to transfer 0 cards from <other player> to myself". Someone, somewhere, asked if this worked. Might have been on the Discord, but I honestly don't recall. I find that, by the plain meaning of "attempt", saying "I attempt to do X" means "If I can do X, I do X". I conclude that the objection to the word "attempt" is spurious. 2. Methods for the Transfer CuddleBeam cites Rule 2577, "Asset Actions", which says in part, "Attempts to transfer no assets are successful." However, this does not specify a method. Rule 2125,"Regulated Actions", says in part: If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified within it. While that provision is about as clear as mud, it does says that the method for performing an action needs to be specified. Saying generally that attempts are successful does not provide a method. The only way I can read the Rule 2577 provision is as a clarification of the sentence stating that an asset's owner can transfer it by announcement. Or the statement is completely ineffective. Which of those is true is outside the scope of this case, but it is certainly true that there was no method given for CuddleBeam to transfer 0 assets from other players to emself. I conclude that the objection that CuddleBeam's action lacked a method is valid. 3. Natural Numbers I now reach the objection raised by the caller in eir arguments. Is 0 a natural number? CuddleBeam relied on the following provision of Rule 2577, "Asset Actions": When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other calculations. If 0 is not a natural number, the provision would round transfers of 0 assets up to 1, and CuddleBeam relies on this behavior. However, e is incorrect. I'll start off by citing Rule 2509, "Agoran Numbers", which says in part: If a switch is defined as being associated with a specified set of numbers (a numerical switch), then the possible values for that switch are the numbers in that set. In particular, a natural or integer switch is a switch with possible values the non-negative integers or all integers, respectively. This implies very strongly that the numbers in the set of natural numbers are the non-negative integers. In fact, it comes about as close to stating that fact as it could without actually doing so. Even if the other rules did not lead me to this conclusion, I would still reach it. It is consistent with the common sense interpretation of Rule 2577, which is clearly written on the assumption that 0-asset transfers are a no-op. Furthermore, although there is by no means universal agreement, is also consistent with the most common standards used in other jurisdictions I checked. 0 is used as the base for the version of the Peano axioms found on Wikipedia. Perhaps more authoritatively, it is also the definition used in the ISO 80000-2 standard. I conclude that the objection that attempts to transfer 0 assets are not rounded up because 0 is already a natural number is valid. 4. Conclusion Two out of the three objections I reviewed were valid. Specifically, there is no method for CuddleBeam to transfer 0 assets, and even if e could do so, eir transfer would not be rounded up. Accordingly, I rule FALSE. Judge's Evidence Rule 2125/12 (Power=3) Regulated Actions An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2) that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some person bound by that body of law is required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor. If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action from being performed except as described within it, including by limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified within it. A body of law does not proscribe any action which it does not regulate. Rule 2509/2 (Power=2) Agoran Numbers A "number" is considered to refer to a real number, unless otherwise explicitly specified. A "number of (items)", where (items) is a set of discrete entities, is considered to refer to a non-negative integer, unless otherwise explicitly specified. If a switch is defined as being associated with a specified set of numbers (a numerical switch), then the possible values for that switch are the numbers in that set. In particular, a natural or integer switch is a switch with possible values the non-negative integers or all integers, respectively. If a limit is further defined, the possible values are the numbers of the set within the specified limits. If 0 is in the specified values for a numerical switch and no default value is otherwise specified, 0 is the default value for that switch. If the rules describe mathematical operations to be used in flipping an instance of a numerical switch, the operations are interpreted as having common-sense mathematical application to determine that instance's resulting value. For example, "increasing a switch instance by M" is equivalent to "flipping a switch instance from its current value N to the value N+M". If the specified mathematical operation would result in a value outside that switch's defined set, the flipping CANNOT be performed, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Rule 2577/6 (Power=3) Asset Actions An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. Attempts to destroy no assets are successful. An indestructible asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be destroyed except as explicitly specified by its backing document; any other asset is destructible. For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for that asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an entity an asset is to create it in eir possession. For an entity to lose an asset is for that asset to be destroyed from that entity's possession. To revoke an asset from an entity is to destroy it from that entity's possession. For entity A to take an asset from entity B is to transfer it from entity B to entity A. An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its backing document. Attempts to transfer no assets are successful. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid. When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other calculations.
