If no one objects to you doing it that way, your plan sounds good to
me. Thanks for clarifying!
-Aris
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:46 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sure.
>
> You are correct that I was over-broad in suggesting that *any* contract
> would work, as I was picturing the previous version of Contracts in my
> mind. Obviously, for example, Hashed contracts wouldn't do the trick.
>
> I would amend that with a simple asterisk, to say "Is the Jargon in a
> Document that is public in content that has a firm legal status resistant
> to change (i.e. tracked by Agora, or prevented from changing without
> reasonable notice)?. Certain contracts would qualify if the change
> mechanism required a public process at least equivalent to With Notice."
> (Since these are guidelines this comes down to common sense, but it's
> worth pointing out that I don't mean private contracts, I suppose).
>
> If the motion were supported I would add this formally, otherwise I
> would add this asterisk to the case as a gratuitous argument when I do
> the archives.
>
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > No one has any comments at all?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:30 AM Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > There's one part of this CFJ I strongly disagree with, which is the
> > > special status accorded to contracts. Contracts have no extra, magical
> > > power to define things. If a rule or regulation defines something,
> > > then no further test should be required. If a contract defines
> > > something, I see no reason why that should be accorded a special
> > > deference. I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider
> > > this CFJ. I'll try to correct the other problems I have with the
> > > ruling legislatively, but on this point I think it's just incorrect.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:04 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Attn H. Assessor and other Officers, this CFJ tightens the standards for
> > > > *any* zombie actions (meaning some past zombie votes have failed, though
> > > > I'm pretty sure all have self-ratified).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CFJ Statement: "My definition of the reiteration of votes is effective".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I judge this CFJ, tentatively numbered 3663, as follows:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Caller has attempted to assert that a certain short phrase
> > > > (hereafter
> > > > the Jargon) can be substituted for a set of actions (hereafter the
> > > > Actions). In this context, "effective" in the CFJ statement could have
> > > > two meanings: (1) Does the Jargon effectively enter the Agoran lexicon
> > > as
> > > > a replacement stating that one performs the Actions, and (2) do the
> > > > Actions themselves (i.e. if announced without the Jargon) have the
> > > desired
> > > > game effect. In other words, is it effective in word AND in deed? I'll
> > > > opine on both of these.
> > > >
> > > > I'll start with the second one. The Actions in question are:
> > > > "I unconditionally vote, and act on
> > > > behalf of each zombie that I own to unconditionally vote, the same
> > > > on
> > > > the Agoran Decision on the subject of whether to adopt X as I did
> > > > the
> > > > last time I voted on an Agoran Decision on the subject whether to
> > > > adopt X, or PRESENT if I have never before voted on an Agoan
> > > > Decision
> > > > on the subject of whether to adopt X"
> > > >
> > > > First, I'll note that Agora favors "natural language" in talking about
> > > > "definitions", not the "computer programming" sense of definitions. In
> > > > the computer programming sense, one would substitute the Actions for the
> > > > Jargon before evaluating the statement, then treat the statement as if
> > > > it
> > > > contained the exact quote. However, in natural language, we look at
> > > > context and parts of speech, and don't perform "exact substitutions"
> > > > generally.
> > > >
> > > > Looking at the Actions, there's an unexpected side-issue, specifically
> > > > with Zombies, in R2466(Acting on Behalf):
> > > > the agent must, in the message in which the
> > > > action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the
> > > > action is being taken on behalf of that person.
> > > >
> > > > The key phrase here is "in the message...uniquely identify". For
> > > > actions
> > > > in general, we have a weaker standard, we've allowed "specify" in R478
> > > > to include outside references (e.g. to other Reports or messages).
> > > > However, "in the same message uniquely identify" is a stronger standard.
> > > > Specifying "each zombie I own" or even "my zombie" does not IN THE SAME
> > > > MESSAGE identify the principal - instead it refers to outside
> > > > information. The only Rules-supported way to uniquely identify a person
> > > > in a standalone message is in R2139: using "information sufficient to
> > > > identify" the principal, which by long-standing tradition is the
> > > > person's
> > > > name or nickname (and yes, variant spellings count as long as there's no
> > > > confusion).
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, for ANY zombie action, the zombie's name must appear
> > > explicitly
> > > > in the action message, AND a clear indication that it's an act-on-behalf
> > > > action (via verbs like "I act on behalf" or "I make" or "I cause" or "I
> > > > have" or explicitly indicating that the explicitly-named person is the
> > > > agent's zombie). And importantly, "in the message" means NO
> > > substitutions
> > > > allowed.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, these actions, by using "each zombie", would fail, even if
> > > used
> > > > directly without the Jargon. And further, since the Jargon does not
> > > > explicitly include the "act on behalf", using the Jargon would have two
> > > > points of failure.
> > > >
> > > > Important to note, this affects our general interpretation of zombie
> > > > actions. Past actions that use "my zombie" instead of a name have been
> > > > accepted, that was incorrect (but those have self-ratified I believe).
> > > >
> > > > The zombie part aside, I find that some variant of "I unconditionally
> > > vote
> > > > as I did on my most recent vote" is fine and functional, provided the
> > > > record is reasonably clear. But the zombie part makes the Actions
> > > > as a whole ineffective.
> > > >
> > > > NOW: on to the Jargon. Has the Caller successfully introduced
> > > "reiterate"
> > > > as a synonym for a particular set of Actions?
> > > >
> > > > In general, Agorans use Jargon a fair amount, and there's nothing wrong
> > > > with that. However, each player is not free to adopt Humpty Dumpty's
> > > > maxim of choosing words to mean just what *they* want them to mean,
> > > that's
> > > > chaos rather than communication.
> > > >
> > > > Further, CFJ 1460 set a long-standing precedent that announced actions
> > > > cannot take an unreasonable effort to interpret (this is captured in
> > > R2517
> > > > for conditionals). This needs to be considered collectively as well as
> > > > individually - while it isn't unreasonable for an Assessor to remember a
> > > > few, well-used pieces of Jargon, it would be unreasonable if 20 players
> > > > introduced 20 different pieces of Jargon with slightly different
> > > > nuances.
> > > >
> > > > So what's the appropriate filter? After some considerations about how
> > > > jargon enters Agora, I offer 3 tests that a judge might consider.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is the Jargon contained in a Rules-sanctioned legal document? (E.g.
> > > > the Rules or a Contract)?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Does the Jargon stand out as a term-of-art? (that is, is its
> > > > proposed
> > > > use sufficiently different than the jargon's common use, or is it
> > > > clearly
> > > > an acronym, so that a typical Agoran reader would recognize it as
> > > > jargon,
> > > > even if e didn't know the exact meaning?)
> > > >
> > > > 3. Was the Jargon introduced with context initially (and repeatedly)?
> > > > (E.g., in its early use, it was used as "I [Jargon], as per the [Jargon]
> > > > Contract" or quoting the meaning of the jargon).
> > > >
> > > > These are guidelines, not hard-and-fast proscriptions. These are not
> > > > meant to stifle the natural evolution of a community's communication
> > > > practices. However, these should CERTAINLY be examined when attempts
> > > > are
> > > > made to *purposefully* introduce a new term.
> > > >
> > > > My feeling is that, for most cases, having 1 of the above elements isn't
> > > > enough. Just being in a Contract isn't enough if the term is otherwise
> > > > common and hasn't been introduced with context. Just being a stand-out
> > > > word isn't enough if there's no reference for the meaning. Being
> > > > introduced in context isn't enough if it doesn't stand out later. So
> > > > maybe 2 of the 3 is enough (e.g. the Foundry contract satisfied (1) and
> > > > (2) for Shipping and Receiving, TTTTPF satisfies (2) and (3)). But this
> > > > should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
> > > >
> > > > So how does the Caller's attempt fare?
> > > >
> > > > 1. The document in questioned is not rules-sanctioned, so 0 points
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Not only does the chosen term ("reiterate") have a common use that
> > > > makes sense in context of voting, but the common use is actually
> > > > opposite
> > > > the proposed meaning! To "reiterate" means to "restate clearly". If
> > > > you
> > > > say "I hereby restate my name for the record" but don't actually restate
> > > > your name, that's "I Say I Did" - it's not true that you did it.
> > > > Similarly, if you say "I reiterate my vote" without actually restating
> > > > your vote, you're not telling the truth in common language. Since this
> > > is
> > > > a complete reverse of the term's common-language use, and the common-use
> > > > makes perfect sense with respect to restating a vote, I'd give a -1
> > > there.
> > > >
> > > > 3. The term has seen one "actual" use, without context in the message.
> > > > So 0 there. (Maybe 0.5, as the proximity of other threads on the
> > > > subject
> > > > might offer context).
> > > >
> > > > Again, these are guidelines, it's not as if summing them is trying to
> > > meet
> > > > a set level. But overall, taking the tests both individually and
> > > > collectively, it seems here that this particular Jargon introduction
> > > would
> > > > not be effective at conveying the intended actions, so the definition is
> > > > ineffective.
> > > >
> > > > Having noted that the caller's definition is ineffective both in word
> > > > and
> > > > in deed, I find this CFJ FALSE.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
