Kate wrote:
I CFJ: RadicalRose possesses two or more stamps of eir own type.
This is CFJ 4097. I assign it to Murphy.
Original CFJ and caller's arguments:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-November/053876.html
Gratuitous arguments from RadicalRose:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-November/064582.html
Gratuitous arguments from literallyAmbiguous:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-November/064583.html
Gratuitous arguments in chat log, on or about 2024-11-16 21:35 UTC:
<kiako> hmm is this use of "intent" in fee-based actions a problem
<kiako> its probably something that can just be assumed to work
<Janet> it mirrors "by announcement"
<Janet> and I don't believe that this attempt worked
<Janet> it's at best ambiguous with an attempt to make a tabled action
intent
<kiako> yeah I don't love that
<kiako> > I intend to do X
<kiako> can be read as "I do X" or "I will do X" depending on if X is
tabled
<Janet> well I would argue it should only be read as the latter
<kiako> I as well
<qenya> i think it's important to note that performing an action by
announcement doesn't just require you to "set... forth intent to perform
that action", it requires you to "set... forth intent to perform that
action by sending that message"
<qenya> just saying "i intend to cast such-and-such vote" is ambiguous
about whether it means it to happen now or in the future
<qenya> fee-based actions are phrased slightly differently but not
enough to make a difference i think
~qenya
Judge's arguments:
For "intent" in general:
* The ordinary-language meaning of "I intend to do X", absent further
context, is "I intend to do X at some point in the future".
* The most common level of clarity required by the rules is set by
Rule 478: "intent to perform that action by sending that message ...
clearly and unambiguously".
* In some cases, the standard is explicitly higher: intent to perform
a tabled action must be done "clearly, conspicuously, explicitly,
and without obfuscation". In others, the standard is explicitly
lower: for registration, "reasonably clearly and reasonably
unambiguously" is good enough, with game custom that e.g. "I intend
to register" clears this lower bar, because it was agreed that
disputing whether a new player even joined successfully would
discourage new players too much.
For Fee-based Actions (do X by paying a fee of Y), the thing for which
you must indicate intent is "paying a fee of Y for the sole purpose of
doing X", and Rule 2579 does not specify the level of clarity required.
On review, I find that the level set by Rule 478 should be used as a
baseline in such cases, and thus agree with the caller's argument and
judge FALSE. I also recommend amending Rule 478 to make this explicit
going forward.
Also, for RadicalRose's benefit, the typical response to such cases is
to announce something like "If <previous action> failed, then I <do the
same action but with the ambiguity fixed>". That way, you definitely get
your desired outcome without needing to wait for the case to be judged,
and without the risk of inadvertently doing it twice; the only question
is when exactly it occurred, which often doesn't affect anything except
one timestamp in someone's report.
Judge's evidence:
Excerpts covering uses of "intend" or "intent" in the context of
non-tabled actions.
Rule 478 (Power 3), Fora
Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
announcement", that person performs that action by, in a single
public message, specifying the action and setting forth intent to
perform that action by sending that message, doing both clearly
and unambiguously.
Rule 2518 (Power 3), Determinacy
A communication purporting to express conditional intent to
perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a
minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably
straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at
the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain
specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes
the communication.
Rule 107 (Power 3), Initiating Agoran Decisions
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. To be valid, the notice must clearly
specify the following information:
Rule 683 (Power 3), Voting on Agoran Decisions
An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions:
5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
the identified vote.
Rule 2471 (Power 1), No Faking
The above notwithstanding, a formal announcement of intent is
never a lie.
Rule 1742 (Power 2.5), Contracts
Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may
publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention
that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such
an agreement is known as a contract.
Rule 2579 (Power 3), Fee-based Actions
(the method in question on this case)
To use a fee-based method, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise
permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing
the action; the announcement must specify the correct set of
assets for the fee and indicate intent to pay that fee for the
sole purpose of using that method to perform that action.
--
[ANSC H:GE V:G B:0]
