On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 03:22 -0600, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion
wrote:
> My new and improved, full-proto-judgement of CFJ 3947 follows.
You've done a good job with this! Many of the points you've covered
have been decided before, and I think you've come to the same
conclusions for the same reasons. I'm going to add in some comments and
cross-references to the precedents I can find (these are comments on
the full judgement but I'm interspersing them with the history section
in order to save having to quote a lot of text).
> I judge CFJ 3947 FALSE.
>
> Arguments:
> {{{
> The person called grok has called this cfj, and in order to determine if e
> has registered, we should consider all things e has done since being
> deregistered. The list of actions in order follows:
>
> * grok was deregistered
> * grok much later published a public message with text "grok was always a
> player" at 17:04:46 UTC on Friday, January 28th
> * grok quickly after tried to amend that text ("action") to read "RWO:
> grok was always a player"
I interpret this as two separate actions (making a statement, and then
intending to RWO), rather than as the second action overriding the
first. It doesn't end up making any difference though.
CFJ 3943 (as mentioned by the caller) already found that this didn't
work; you came to the same conclusion on the same reasoning.
> * grok called CFJ 3943: "grok is a player" and gave a gratuitous argument
CFJ 3148, 3130 found that initiating a CFJ on one's own playerhood does
not reasonably unambiguously indicate intent to become a player, which
is the same case that's being tested here.
> * grok attempted to vote on proposals 8635, 8636, and 8637. (FOR, PRESENT,
> PRESENT)
> * grok submitted a Claim of Error on the Registar's weekly report, saying
> "grok is a player"
> * grok replies to the statement that their votes on the above proposals
> didn't work with "If CFJ 3943 is TRUE, then I was a player two hours before
> the Agoran decisions on adopting these proposals were initiated."
> * On Tuesday, February 1st, upon being told CFJ 3943 was judged false,
> grok replied "oh cool i deregister"
I think that this is grok's only attempt recently to take an action
that's restricted specifically to players (eir other actions are either
impossible in general or can be performed by nonplayers in some
circumstances, e.g. a nonplayer can vote on a decision if e
deregistered during its voting period). CFJ 3776 found that in cases
where most readers fail to interpret the message as a registration
attempt, this sort of action isn't a valid registration (and didn't
look at the case where most readers do interpret it as a registration
attempt; I'm not sure whether we have a precedent on that one yet).
For what it's worth, I interpreted it as an attempt to ambiguously
register (IIRC there's a precedent that those don't work either, but I
can't find it), but suspect that most players didn't.
CFJ 3776 also found that providing extra context to an earlier
registration attempt can't retroactively cause it to be successful.
> * On Sunday, February 6th, they replied to their earlier message including
> "RWO" with "I resolve this Agoran decision. With G's objection, the
> document is not ratified."
--
ais523
