On 6/8/23 18:08, Forest Sweeney via agora-official wrote: > CoE: CFJ 4034 affects this report. If consent was not withdrawn, juan's > rice plan is more likely to have been harvested in section 2. In CFJ 4032, > if consent cannot be given, then the first rice plan each week has won, and > we'll have to recalculate. Finally, 4st's consent is annoying. > > I respond to this CoE by citing several CFJs: 4034, 4032, and a new CFJ: > I call another CFJ, barring Janet: Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested. > > Arguments FOR: G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), and 4st's consent > didn't work or worked on both, so Yachay's plan was earliest and was tied > for most signatures, and was thus harvested. > > Arguments PARADOX: > G did not withdraw their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a > paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested. > Yachay's plan would not have enough signatures if it were to be harvested, > and it would have enough signatures if it wasn't going to be harvested. > > G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox > as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested, thus Yachay's > plan would now have enough signatures, and juan's plan would be tied for > first. > > Arguments AGAINST: G did not withdraw eir consent, and 4st's consent either > didn't work or worked on both, so juan's plan was harvested. > > @Tailor/@Herald: IF I WON THE RICE GAME, I grant myself the Patent Title > Champion, and award myself an Ultraviolet Ribbon. > @Prime Minister: Just a heads up that I may have won the rice game, but > it's pretty unclear. > > > FINALLY: please help check this report, I posted a draft before for a > reason, so hopefully that improves the confidence here.
Gratuitous: This is potentially affected by Proposal 8988, which redefined being a signatory in terms of a new "sign"ing action performed by announcement. Arguably this meant that all non-contract based signings (and potentially some contract based signings, depending on wording) no longer counted under the new definition. There's also definitely no paradox. 4st's purported consent simply must not have worked at all under CFJ4013. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
