AFFIRM without prejudice.
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3282a > > ============================ Appeal 3282a ============================ > > Panelist: FKA441344 > Decision: > > Panelist: Roujo > Decision: > > Panelist: Italy > Decision: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Appeal initiated: 05 Nov 2012 14:57:55 GMT > Assigned to FKA441344 (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Roujo (panelist): (as of this message) > Assigned to Italy (panelist): (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant Antony's Arguments: > >> From the Caller's arguments: >>>> since Golems are *not* sending messages and no rule is >>>> pretending they are, it's equally valid to say "I cause my Golem to do >>>> X without objection" as "I cause my Golem to do X by announcement" >>>> (since "by announcement" is defined with reference to sending >>>> messages) - in both cases the purported mechanism is a lie. >> >> As the judge, I disagree with this critical core of the argument. >> The Fora rule allows any player to make an announcement by sending a > message >> [...] > (This restates what I addressed in my later arguments.) >> The Caller later added: >>> I don't think your [referring to the judge's arguments above] leap from a >>> rule with a condition (actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE) and a >>> mechanism (directly causing the Golem to take the action through a >>> rule effect) to a different mechanism (causing the Golem to send a >>> message) makes sense. A rule saying you can cause the Golem to send a >>> message (like the Promises rule) would make (more) sense, but that's >>> not what this rule says. Unless you're arguing that the "action" in >>> question is sending a message. >> >> to which I reply: we have to make some such inferences >> that this is possible; for example, the only mechanism for deregistering >> is making announcements, > > Well, more precisely, "A player CAN deregister by announcement", which > is the same form as any other announcement action. My argument is > that "CAN take actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by > announcement", for it to have any effect at all, must be interpreted > as "if it would be possible for the Golem to take an action by > activating some mechanism, this rule provides a separate announcement > mechanism to take that action", so there is nothing preventing Golems > from having their owner deregister them. > > [Historical note: Golems existed for only ten days before R101 was > amended to remove Golems' rights, but multiple cases (3169, 3173) > about those rights were called in the meantime. 3169 concluded, among > other things, that giving the owner a mechanism to deregister the > Golem was sufficient to satisfy its right to deregister, and 3173 that > this was true even if the Golem publicly protested that e wished to > deregister.] > > You said that you interpret the clause as "requiring that the > mechanism be followed", but that can only mean that the clause is > interpreted as "CAN take actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE, > using a mechanism that is a combination of 'by announcement' and the > mechanism that makes them POSSIBLE" (you said: "requiring that the > mechanism be followed"), but aside from making the clause pretty > useless, this poses a chicken and egg problem: the original mechanism > is for the Golem to make an announcement, but although a player might > generally be able to cause em to do so through an informal > act-on-behalf agreement, the Golem would have to express its assent > somehow; that requires publishing a message. (And even if you take > "sending a message" as the "action", which is clearly not the intent > of the clause, doing it by announcement *still* requires faking the > method, because the method for sending a message is (the Golem itself > possibly or someone previously authorized to act on behalf of em) > sending an email, turtles all the way down.) Or else you're just > turning "can act on behalf of X to perform actions" into "can send > messages on behalf of X to attempt to perform actions", which I think > is not precedented and too vaguely defined. > > Someone might argue that without any mechanism for causing a person to > act, everything is "otherwise IMPOSSIBLE" for em to do, which would > cause Golems to be paralyzed, but the interests of the game in > avoiding paralyzation, never mind the R101 rights cited by G. suggest > that we should consider this "POSSIBLE" as "something that's legally > possible, regardless of the situation of the guy on the other end of > the line" rather than "something that's practically possible for the > person to do", just as it's not rules-IMPOSSIBLE for me to take some > morally heinous action just because I could not bring myself to do it, > and wasn't rules-IMPOSSIBLE for Bayes to submit a CFJ even though he > had no code to do that. > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant Kolja's Arguments: > > I support the appeal, I think it's important to get maximum clarity and > consensus on this topic. > > ======================================================================== > > Appellant G.'s Arguments: > > Agreed, it deserves more than myself and omd; I support and do so. > > Appeals argument, just to see if it puts the issue as clearly and neutrally > as possible [omd please let me know if this captures it neutrally]: > > 1. The rule in question [Rule 2361/1] says "The owner of a Slave Golem > CAN cause it to take actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by > announcement." > > 2. Let's say another rule says "Players can do X without objection". > > 3. The caller claims that it should be parsed "[Players CAN do X] > without objection", meaning that, since "Players CAN do X", the > owner can cause the golem to do X by the owner announcing that the > slave does X, ignoring the 'without objection' requirement. > > 4. The Judge's arguments state that it should be parsed "[Players > can do X without objection]", meaning that the owner can set up > for the golem to do X, but only via the golem using the without > objection mechanism, because it is "otherwise IMPOSSIBLE" without > using the without objection method. > > 5. The caller counters that, if the judge's arguments were correct, > that, since many actions are written "Players can do Y by > announcement", reading it "[Players can do Y by announcement]" > instead of "[Players can do Y] by announcement" makes it impossible > for the golem to do anything at all, because golems literally cannot > announce anything. > > 6. The judge counters that R478(Fora) sufficiently strongly implies > that golems CAN announce things 'via' their owner (i.e. the owner > is part of the mechanism, an extra step in the email client, in the > 'via a public forum' clause). The judge states that this is > (a) generally in keeping in past precedents on what 'acting on > behalf of' means; and > (b) at the time this case arose, R101 was protective of the R101 > rights of golems; > so R101(v) (Participation in the fora) required us to infer the > ability of golems to send messages to fora and therefore announce > stuff. > > 7. Caller's appeal states that 6(a) and (b) are not enough at all > to infer that golems can announce anything, so we either have to > accept the caller's reading of "[Players can do X]" (the caller's > preferred argument) or accept that golems never could do anything > at all (rewinding months of gamestate, counter to just about > anyone's perceptions). > > ======================================================================== > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3282 > > ============================== CFJ 3282 ============================== > > Proposal 7174 was enacted. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: Antony > > Judge: G. > Judgement: FALSE > > Appeal: 3282a > Decision: (pending) > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by Antony: 14 Oct 2012 03:33:07 GMT > Assigned to G.: 14 Oct 2012 04:13:27 GMT > Judged FALSE by G.: 01 Nov 2012 22:47:44 GMT > Appealed by Antony: 01 Nov 2012 23:31:07 GMT > Appealed by Kolja: 05 Nov 2012 09:47:24 GMT > Appealed by G.: 05 Nov 2012 14:57:55 GMT > Appeal 3282a: 05 Nov 2012 14:57:55 GMT > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 10:37 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> This removes the two instances of "take actions that are not otherwise >> IMPOSSIBLE by announcement". My attempted scam is to interpret that >> as allowing taking actions normally permitted without objection by >> announcement, which happens to be the exact scam that I tried 7 months >> ago, and was ruled to fail in CFJ 3171. (That was the one where G. >> called my arguments "either purposefully or idiotically obtuse".) >> However, some weeks later I noticed an argument that at least calls >> the judgement into question. To quote myself: >> >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:30 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [The current mechanism has weird interactions with higher-powered >>> Rules and actions that are performed by sending a message rather than >>> by announcement, and I am skeptical that my recent scam failed in a >>> way that is not patchable (unless Golems are generally unable to act). >>> In particular, even if the mechanism is part of the specification of >>> an action, since Golems are *not* sending messages and no rule is >>> pretending they are, it's equally valid to say "I cause my Golem to do >>> X without objection" as "I cause my Golem to do X by announcement" >>> (since "by announcement" is defined with reference to sending >>> messages) - in both cases the purported mechanism is a lie. I would >>> have brought this up in CFJ 3171, but I wasn't thinking straight. >>> Durr.] >> >> You could argue that "without objection" is a more complex mechanism >> than "by announcement", but I think there's a decent chance that >> either Golems and the President have never been able to take (most?) >> actions, or the permission to "take actions that are not otherwise >> IMPOSSIBLE by announcement" extends to the mechanism of >> without-objection. > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 5:04 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [Proposal 7174] >> was the proposal I submitted back in February and attempted to >> distribute after causing a Golem to make everyone inactive. I listed >> myself as the only eligible voter in the distribution and this was >> contested within a week, so the distribution was only effective if the >> inactive-making was; since I then attempted to retract the proposal >> (for simplicity), there was no purported resolution to self-ratify. >> If it happens that the scam was effective after all (I'm not claiming >> it necessarily was, but I may as well go all the way): > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > "The owner of a Slave Golem CAN cause it to take actions that are not > otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by announcement." > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3171 > > Relevant messages from when 7174 was proposed: > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg23089.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg23112.html > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg23156.html > The message in which I purported to resolve it (and shamefully lied > about my non-laziness): > http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg23943.html > > ======================================================================== > > Judge G.'s Arguments: > > First, as I was an earlier judge on the same subject, if this is to be re- > examined, I request an Appeal (rather than a Motion to Reconsider) and I > request that the Appeals Court come up with a joint uphold or overturn > with some consensus, rather than a simple reassign. > > >From the Caller's arguments: >>> since Golems are *not* sending messages and no rule is >>> pretending they are, it's equally valid to say "I cause my Golem to do >>> X without objection" as "I cause my Golem to do X by announcement" >>> (since "by announcement" is defined with reference to sending >>> messages) - in both cases the purported mechanism is a lie. > > As the judge, I disagree with this critical core of the argument. > The Fora rule allows any player to make an announcement by sending a message > > via a public forum. It is a simple inference from slave golem mechanisms to > > say that the slave's Master is part of the sending mechanism, i.e., a slave > sends a message "via" the mechanism of eir master, which is no more strange > that saying it happens "via" wires or "via" an email client. > > This is similar in precedent to saying that a golem's R101 rights were not > violated as e could deregister via eir master. (before R101 was amended > to exclude golems, of course, but the principle is part of precedent). > > This is not true of without objection, which require specific announcements > by first-class players to work. That is, there is no way that this > mechanism can work "via" a master's single announcement alone. > > The Caller later added: >> I don't think your [referring to the judge's arguments above] leap from a >> rule with a condition (actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE) and a >> mechanism (directly causing the Golem to take the action through a >> rule effect) to a different mechanism (causing the Golem to send a >> message) makes sense. A rule saying you can cause the Golem to send a >> message (like the Promises rule) would make (more) sense, but that's >> not what this rule says. Unless you're arguing that the "action" in >> question is sending a message. > > to which I reply: we have to make some such inferences > that this is possible; for example, the only mechanism for deregistering > is making announcements, and the previous precedent on R101 said that > this had to be possible for a golem to avoid R101 being violated, so the > strong R101 "no interpretation of Agoran law" kicks in there to strongly > we should interpret thusly. Not to mention the right to participation > in the fora!! > > Thus, overall, I hold that including mechanism as a part of "where the rules > > permit" (i.e. requiring that the mechanism be followed, in accordance with > earlier judgement) does not paralyze golems, as inferring their > "announcement" > ability is in keeping with the Rules on Fora, and also was required by R101. > > ========================================================================
