On 6/11/23 01:23, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I file a motion to extend in each of CFJs 4040 and 4041.
>
> DRAFT Judgement in CFJ 4040, CFJ 4041:
>
> {
>
> These cases are regarding the registration of a player who calls emself
> "blob". Because a former and well-known player went by the name "Blob",
> this has resulted in confusion about how officers should refer to either
> player in reports. The question before this court is how these names are
> to be interpreted in a short-term ephemeral report about current players
> (CFJ 4040) and a long-term historical document about an unbounded set of
> persons (CFJ 4041).
>
> Agora is a game that highly values its history. As such, many former
> players, even from long ago, are frequently referenced in reports. The
> older Blob is no exception. E is referenced every month in the
> Rulekeepor's Herald's, and Registrar's monthly reports. As such, most
> current and long-standing players are aware of the existence of Blob
> and, before the registration of the newer blob, would have recognized
> the name as a historical player.
>
> However, reports are not just for experienced players. The purpose of a
> report is primarily to inform all interested persons, including new
> players and onlookers who lack historical context, and secondarily to
> act as a historical record. Both of these purposes demand clarity and
> unambiguity, as prior cases on reports have found.
>
> Here I focus on the first purpose, as it is more tangible. Let us
> consider a hypothetical new player that has acquired the most recent
> version of each report. Such a player would most certainly conclude that
> the "blob" and "Blob" referenced in the two reports at issue are the
> same person. (As to the casing difference, even the most perceptive and
> inquisitive new player might fail to notice the difference, and those
> that do would likely ignore it.)
>
> Thus, a new player reading the reports at issue would be actively
> mislead into believing one version of the gamestate, while a veteran
> player would read the reports in a different, accurate way using their
> historical knowledge. This is confusion, not communication. The reports
> have failed in their primary duty to inform.
>
> Therefore, at least the referenced Herald's monthly report must be
> ambiguous in its reference to "Blob".
>
> However, this leaves the question of whether the referenced Herald's
> Weekly report is ambiguous in its reference to "blob". Both a veteran
> player and a new player will come to the conclusion that the "blob"
> referenced there is the same person listed as "blob" in the most recent
> Registrar's report. It has also been suggested that the fact that the
> Herald's weekly report is supposed to only list players is sufficient to
> disambiguate. Nevertheless, I also find that this usage is ambiguous. It
> is not good for the game for two documents, potentially sent seconds
> apart, to use the same name (up to casing) to refer to two entirely
> different persons.It's not clear to a player who hasn't kept perfect
> track of the gamestate, and it's not clear to a future onlooker trying
> to reconstruct gamestate.
>
> CFJ 4040 DRAFT judged FALSE.
>
> CFJ 4041 DRAFT judged FALSE.
>
> }
>I judge CFJ 4040, CFJ 4041 as above. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
