Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/3/2020 1:22 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I have looked at all the CFJs involved and your gratuitous arguments and > am ready to deliver my judgement. Am I good to do so? no reason why not from here
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
I have looked at all the CFJs involved and your gratuitous arguments and am ready to deliver my judgement. Am I good to do so? On 7/2/2020 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 7/2/2020 11:41 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: So where this sort of thing got judged or entered custom to count for our version of "clear" is still a mystery. So at this point, I'm honestly happy if the judge just mentions "this sort of thing worked before, but the precedents are confused and let's look at it fresh" or "this one was *extremely* buried" with maybe a quickie comparison between the actual past hidden messages (not worrying much more what the past judgements thought). I will make sure to look at the CFJs first, but it's likely that this is what I will do. Thanks! Not requesting more than that. I'll add a gratuitous coda/final argument for the record: This chapter in Agoran history ended soon after the Bank Heist, which brought about a dependent action fix by Proposal 8107 (Buried Intent Prevention Act v2, adopted 27-Oct-18). That proposal changed this text: “1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days earlier.“ to: “1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days earlier.“ This separation made "without obfuscation" part of the whole announcement message (meaning 'no hiding' the intent overall), but separated "unambiguously and clearly specify" to refer only to the intent contents (asking once you find the intent in the message, is it clear?) That distinction currently persists in game custom, and in the dependent action rules text (game custom seems to apply the standard to all action specifications not just intents), and is the basis for my vote counting. -G. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/2/2020 2:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 7/2/2020 11:05 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Thank you for the input. I will definitely take a closer look at those previous cases and incorporate them into my judgement. It's my bad for not at least briefly looking for previous precedents. If someone finds that other successful hidden message from 2018, I will incorporate that too. Found it. And it's ... somewhat unhelpful. Sending to BUS to make it formally "gratuitous" and put the messages in evidence: Hidden intent message forwarded in full when the action was actually performed: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039325.html (shorter report, but payload lines are even more hidden within the report - see if you can find without peeking at the answer). found it :) CFJ was 3670, called here but with no Caller's Arguments: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039327.html Judged here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039452.html And unfortunately, by that time it looks like everyone pretty much accepted that the hidden message was fine, and the arguments were all about a contract thing that might have been wrong. Here's what that CFJ 3670 judgement says about clarity: As the intent was published to a public forum, e had given sufficient notice, and the intent, although it followed a quoted statement, was not buried, the condition is fulfilled and e did, in fact, perform the three given actions. So the judge says that intent was "not buried" (though to me it looks pretty buried!) So where this sort of thing got judged or entered custom to count for our version of "clear" is still a mystery. So at this point, I'm honestly happy if the judge just mentions "this sort of thing worked before, but the precedents are confused and let's look at it fresh" or "this one was *extremely* buried" with maybe a quickie comparison between the actual past hidden messages (not worrying much more what the past judgements thought). I will make sure to look at the CFJs first, but it's likely that this is what I will do. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
