I state, under penalty of no faking, that I have not in any way discussed the events underlying this cfj with Murphy, nor have I seen evidence of eir opinions on the current situation.
The below CFJ is 3898. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3898 =============================== CFJ 3898 =============================== The time at which an intent to do something without objection becomes resolvable is a deadline. ========================================================================== Caller: Jason Barred: G. Judge: Murphy ========================================================================== History: Called by Jason: 03 Feb 2021 02:25:25 Assigned to Murphy: [now] ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: On 2/2/21 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > The following Emergency Regulation, The First Regulation of G.ravity, > is enacted: > > A pausable intent is any announcement of intent for performing a > dependent action either without N objections, with N Agoran consent, > with notice, or with T notice. > > G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to extend the prior > deadline, provided for in Rule 2595(3), for performing a dependent > action based on a specified pausable intent (i.e. change the > time between intent announcement and the enabling of the > performance of the specified dependent action), to 14 days. That time does not seem to fit the natural language meaning of the word "deadline". Definition from Google: "the latest time or date by which something should be completed." Definition from Merriam-Webster online: "a date or time before which something must be done" Definition from Dictionary.com: "the time by which something must be finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something" or "a line or limit that must not be passed." In all of these definitions, something must become impossible - either an action or the fulfillment of an obligation. For an intent resolution, nothing becomes DISABLED or ILLEGAL when the intent becomes resolvable - instead something becomes ENABLED. A close analogy seems to be the start of a voting period - I would not say that the start is a deadline, only the end. A counterargument could be that the time when it becomes resolvable is the deadline for people to get objections in while they can be sure they can be heard. This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule 2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that the deadline be provided for by the rules. The start of the resolution period also does not fulfill any of the criteria specifically listed in the rule - no action must be done before the resolution period for it to be "valid" - objections are just as valid after the intent is resolvable (when it will still have effect), or even after it is resolved (when it is still an objection, and will prevent repeated resolutions), nor is there generally any obligation for something to be done before an intent becomes resolvable. Caller's Evidence: Rule 2614/5 (Power=3.01) Eclipse Light [Excerpt] - Extend any deadline provided for by any instrument other than this rule, including a deadline for an obligation to be met, or deadline prior to which an action must be performed in order to be valid, such as the end of voting period. Such an extension CANNOT cause the total time period, such as the time from when an obligation was created to the deadline or the whole of a voting period, to be more than double its original length. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: On 2/2/2021 6:25 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule > 2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any > instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that > anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for > POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that > the deadline be provided for by the rules. The language is actually quite straightforward and in keeping with the common definition of deadline. Rule 2614 says "any deadline" and provides the example of "a deadline for an obligation to be met". While this is just an example in the rule, that fact is that a player is obliged to wait, as provided by R2595, 4 days between intent and successfully performing objection-based dependent actions. It is clear that the deadline itself is not provided by R2614. You can't read R2614 and determine that there is four days between when an intent is announced and when it becomes possible to execute the action, so it's not provided there. Instead, Rule 2595, another rule, directly provides a deadline of 4 days. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gratuitous Arguments by Jason: Don't we usually define "obligation" to be about LEGALITY not POSSIBILITY? R2614 says "deadline prior to which an action must be performed in order to be valid" separately from "deadline for an obligation to be met"; the former seems to be about LEGALITY and the latter about POSSIBILITY. Even if there is an "obligation" to be met before the intent resolution can happen, I don't think it makes sense to call it a deadline. If someone attempted to resolve an intent early, I think it would be really weird to say they "didn't meet the deadline". This is supported by R2614's later clarification which says "prior to which an action must be performed" - which way the CANNOT/CAN switches as time progresses matters. ==========================================================================
