[resending to fix formatting] On 6/25/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below if CFJ 3857. I assign it to grok.
Gratuitous arguments for the judge: omd (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043634.html): > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > <agora-business at agoranomic.org > <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-business>> > wrote: > > If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the > > above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that > > message.", I initiate one. > > Arguments: > > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, > you need to identify who "I" is. > > ...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least > did under the rules of the time: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 Response to omd from G. (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059219.html): > On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > > <agora-business at agoranomic.org > > <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion>> > > wrote: > >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the > >> above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that > >> message.", I initiate one. > > > > Arguments: > > > > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, > > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, > > you need to identify who "I" is. > > > > ...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I > > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least > > did under the rules of the time: > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 > > I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and > didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was > only retroactive uncertainty). > > Gratuitous based on current rules: > > In this R78 text: > unambiguously > and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs > it. > > the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity > of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion > that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by > the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying > that e's the one performing it. This is a "for the good of the game" > argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the > self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule). Response to G. from Aris (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059223.html): > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion at agoranomic.org > <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion>> > wrote: > > > > > > On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > > > <agora-business at agoranomic.org > > > <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion>> > > > wrote: > > >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the > > >> above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that > > >> message.", I initiate one. > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > > > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, > > > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, > > > you need to identify who "I" is. > > > > > > ...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I > > > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least > > > did under the rules of the time: > > > > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 > > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 > > > > I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and > > didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was > > only retroactive uncertainty). > > > > Gratuitous based on current rules: > > > > In this R78 text: > > unambiguously > > and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs > > it. > > > > the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity > > of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion > > that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by > > the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying > > that e's the one performing it. This is a "for the good of the game" > > argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the > > self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule). > > > A ton of people are taking this reading, and I just don't get it. > You're reading an awful lot into that e. I think the obvious and most > sensible reading of that provision is that a person doesn't just have > to specify an action (people do this all the time even when they don't > want to perform an action). E also has to specify that e wants to > perform the action, which stops people from accidentally triggering > the provision by mistake. > > As further exposition for this, I'll note that if I meant the > interpretation I just wrote out, I'd have written the rule exactly the > way it's written now. I'd figure that anyone who says "I do X" is > announcing that e is doing X (practically by definition). If I'd > wanted em to have to specify eir identity, I would have written that > as a separate thing e must specify. > > Imagine, for a second, that you're a detective and you hear a man in > another room say "I stole the painting!". You might whisper to your > assistant "he's confessed that he's the thief!". Now imagine that your > assistant told you "no, he hasn't, because we don't know what the > referent of the word "he" is, and that sentence doesn't make sense > without a referent". > > Are you seeing my point? The argument that you need to know someone's > identity for the person to announce that they're doing something is > ridiculous. It borders on the downright absurd. That's... just not how > words work. You can't go and take perfectly clear rules text and make > it say whatever you want because what it actually says isn't in the > best interest of the game, and I think that's what's happening here. > > There's another way to argue this for by announcement actions though. > You could argue that the actor is intrinsically part of the action, to > the point where any unspecified actor voids the action. I disagree. > Voting for a proposal is an action, and it's the same action whether I > do it or G. does it or someone else does it. > > A final point is that this entire discussion is irrelevant because > voting is done by notice, not by announcement. The exclusive criteria > for valid ballots are in Rule 683. > > Rule 683/26 (Power=3) > Voting on Agoran Decisions > > An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a > notice satisfying the following conditions: > > 1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the > decision. > > 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the > initiation of the decision, a player. > > 3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. > > 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by > the voting method. > > 5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place > the identified vote. > > 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision. > > A valid ballot is a ballot, correctly submitted, that has not > been withdrawn. During the voting period of an Agoran decision, > an entity CAN by announcement withdraw (syn. retract) a ballot > that e submitted on that decision. To "change" one's vote is to > retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one. > > > -Aris Clarification from Aris (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059225.html): > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:57 PM Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com > <https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agora-discussion>> > wrote: > > There's another way to argue this for by announcement actions though. > > You could argue that the actor is intrinsically part of the action, to > > the point where any unspecified actor voids the action. I disagree. > > Voting for a proposal is an action, and it's the same action whether I > > do it or G. does it or someone else does it. > > Just to make it clear, I think this is the weak part of my arguments. > I think this is right, but if the judge disagrees with me I'm not > going to complain. For the "e" thing though, I just literally cannot > understand it. People tried to explain it to me several times on > Discord, and it flatly does not make sense in my head. > > -Aris Response to Aris from nch (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059224.html): > On 6/23/20 3:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > Imagine, for a second, that you're a detective and you hear a man in > > another room say "I stole the painting!". You might whisper to your > > assistant "he's confessed that he's the thief!". Now imagine that your > > assistant told you "no, he hasn't, because we don't know what the > > referent of the word "he" is, and that sentence doesn't make sense > > without a referent". > > > > Are you seeing my point? The argument that you need to know someone's > > identity for the person to announce that they're doing something is > > ridiculous. It borders on the downright absurd. That's... just not how > > words work. You can't go and take perfectly clear rules text and make > > it say whatever you want because what it actually says isn't in the > > best interest of the game, and I think that's what's happening here. > > This is more like finding a note that says "I stole the painting" and > then claiming "this is definitely an admissible confession." > > -- > nch > Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager -- Jason Cobb
