COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
Open cases (CFJs)
-----------------
3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR."
3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is
unforgivable for the purposes of R2559."
3652 called by G. 20 July 2018, assigned to Corona 26 August 2018: "If a
person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir Rank 1 facility and then
upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e must pay the full Rank 2
upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction."
3658 called by twg 27 August 2018, judged TRUE by G. 16 September 2018,
G. moved to reconsider 23 September 2018: "The Treasuror's report of
August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is doubted."
3661 called by D. Margaux 16 September 2018, assigned to Corona 16
September 2018: "The fines attempted to be imposed in this message are
EFFECTIVE."
3662 called by Trigon 23 September 2018, assigned to D. Margaux 23
September 2018: "This Notice of Honour causes a player's karma to change
by exactly one and then change back."
Highest numbered case: 3662
Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
--------------------------------------------
3659 called by G. 13 September 2018, judged FALSE by Aris 23 September
2018: "D Margaux has won the game by apathy."
3660 called by D. Margaux 16 September 2018, judged TRUE by G. 16
September 2018: "The Referee CAN act on behalf of eir zombie to Point
the zombie’s Finger at a player."
Day Court Judge Recent
------------------------------
Corona 3641, 3638, 3645, 3652, 3661
[06/17 07/08 07/31 08/26 09/16]
D. Margaux 3662
[09/23]
Murphy 3628, 3633, 3654, 3655, 3656
[03/01 07/08 07/31 08/26 08/26]
V.J. Rada 3649, 3643, 3638, 3648, 3645
[07/01 07/22 07/31 08/26 08/26]
Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
------------------------------
ATMunn 3648
[06/24]
G. 3657, 3658, 3660
[08/26 09/09 09/16]
(These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court
will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will
generally be honored, even for non-court judges.)
Context/arguments/evidence
--------------------------
*** 3645 caller Aris's evidence, quoting G.:
The FLR and SLR are up to date (up to Proposal 8052, and including
revision for the recent CoE on the Treasuror Rule):
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/slr.txt
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
I'm not publishing them, because there is (or was) a message size-
limit on BUS that was specifically removed in OFF for the purpose of
ruleset publication. I don't want to add to any confusion in case
the rulesets bounce from BUS.
*** 3645 caller Aris's arguments, responding to ais523:
> Are you sure this isn't publishing them? People have been able to
> publish things as attachements, hidden in headers, etc. with a
> reference to them in the main message, so I don't see why posting a URL
> that has consistent, known information would necessarily be different.
>
> This may satisfy a requirement to post the rulesets, and if it doesn't
> it's probably because of your disclaimer.
I'm inclined to think that the disclaimer is ineffective for that purpose.
A report occurs when an officer publishes certain information, whether they
want it to or not. Posting the links may count for that purpose, as long as
the text on the other end is labeled as a report, and has all required
information.
*** 3645 G.'s gratuitous arguments:
Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could change the
link contents instantly to anything before most people will have seen
it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of those links is the
only evidence.
I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could
cross-reference my message timing to commit timing.
Overall though, I'm pretty sure we've been strong on "publishing X" means
actually publishing the full contents of X, otherwise it's ISID. The cases
that allowed outside references are generally by-announcement actions,
where outside references work because the specification is like this:
"clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it"
for this, "announcing e performs it" must be included in the actual
announcement, but the "clearly specifying" part can lead to a link that
has a clear specification.
So this would work: "I do as in link X" -> [link X] "I support" because
e announces "I do...", but just providing the same link without an
announced verb/context doesn't do the trick.
There are currently several people who can push to those links (via GitHub)
without the push/overwrite being visible or evident to someone following the
link. However, the underlying github repo (not findable from those links)
would show the commit history that can be cross-referenced link publication
timestamps (e.g. as CFJ evidence).
The judge should consider whether it's "beyond a reasonable effort" for a
typical player to check the underlying evidence (including comparing message
and github date stamps) when verifying whether a document is the correct
one.
(this is a "if the rules are silent...for the good of the game" argument if
the matter is otherwise unclear).
I'm thinking of this in terms of trying out github as a public forum,
I'm not
opposed in principle, but the default interface of github focuses on the
Now,
and requires more digging to go through history as opposed to say the mail
archives (e.g. if an officer is ordering transactions in a log or needs to
know if A happened before B). Not sure if there's some tools that I don't
know about that would make it easier.
*** 3648 caller G.'s evidence:
Published by G. on 20 Jun 2018 09:39:27 -0700 (PDT):
> I impose summary judgement as follows: I levy a fine of 2 Blots on
> Corona for failure to propose a set of Birthday Regulations in a timely
> fashion after June 1 (R2495).
*** 3648 caller G.'s arguments:
R2559 reads in part:
> 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
> levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
> the following assets are created in the possession of that
> player:
"Unforgivable" isn't directly defined in the Ruleset. The definition
is by inference in R2557:
> Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
> investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable,
> specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.
which implies that violations that aren't forgivable are unforgivable.
However, R2557 defines "forgivable" in the context of imposing justice
as per an investigation of a finger-pointing. The fine in question
was levied using R2479:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
> Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
> of up to 2 blots on em.
which does not mention any notion of forgiveness.
There are two reasonable readings, I'm not sure which is correct:
1. Since the fine isn't defined as forgivable, it's unforgivable.
2. Since the rule under which the fine was levied do not mention the
concept, the fine is neither forgivable nor unforgivable.
FWIW, I didn't think about it one way or the other when I imposed the
fine, if I'd thought about it I would have (tried to) specify it as
forgivable.
After reading Rules a few more times, I think this is answered by this
clause in R2479:
> Summary Judgement is imposed on the
> Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
> proceeding.
I think the Finger -> Investigation -> Forgiveness is an "official
proceeding", and since summary judgement is explicitly stated to be
outside of that, any resulting penalties are neither forgivable or
unforgivable.
*** 3652 caller G.'s arguments:
Rule 2560 (Facilities) reads in part:
If an entity other than Agora owns any facilities with upkeep
costs, e must pay them before the first day of the next Agoran
month. Failing to do this destroys the facility. In the second to
last Eastman week of the Agoran Month, the Cartographor SHOULD
issue a humiliating public reminder to all those who have not paid
upkeep fees on any of eir facilities.
There's a few ways of interpreting this clause:
1. At the end of the month, the facility is Rank 2 and has a Rank 2 Upkeep
cost. Has the Rank 2 Upkeep cost been paid? If not, the facility is
destroyed. (argument for TRUE).
2. At the end of the month, has e paid an appropriate upkeep cost for that
facility at any point in the month? If so, e has met the conditions, even
if the upkeep cost later changes, and the facility is not destroyed
(argument
for FALSE).
3. Upkeep costs are additive - if e payed the Rank 1 fee, e can later pay
the difference after e upgrades (FALSE with different implications - I don't
think this one holds up under precedent of single payment for fees, but
including for completeness).
In interpreting, note the new Rules definition of costs/fees in EVIDENCE,
below.
*** 3652 caller G.'s evidence:
Full text of Fee-based Actions (power-3):
If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an
action, that action is a fee-based action.
If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual
fee is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
To perform a fee-based action, 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 performing the action.
Upon such an announcement:
- If the Rules specify a recipient for the fee, and the Actor
CAN transfer that specified fee from emself to the recipient,
then that fee is transferred from the Actor to the recipient
and the action is performed simultaneously;
- If the Rules do not specify a recipient, and the Actor CAN
destroy the specified fee in eir possession, then that fee
in eir possession is destroyed and the action is
performed simultaneously.
- Otherwise, no changes are made to asset holdings and the
action is not performed.
If the Rules define a fee-based action but the specified
set of assets is the empty set, then the action can be performed by
announcement, but the announcement must include that there
is an (empty or 0) fee for the action.
*** 3652 Aris's gratuituous quasi-arguments:
No argument on CFJ 1 yet, although I agree that interpretation 3 seems
rather unlikely. I favor interpretation 2, but haven't come up with a
non-trivial argument for it.
*** 3658 caller twg's arguments:
On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed
> and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported,
> unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0.
> Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all
> liquid currencies" or the like.
>
> Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the
> Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted
> as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no
> implication that the missing data were self-ratified to 0.
>
> (This is just a guess idk, I'm not that bothered but let's not lose all
> our useless stuff if we still got it :P ).
No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I
initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was
at its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a
recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of
assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's
report - as a self-ratifying document.
An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that
CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_,
without blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might
potentially mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror
report (and possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts,
because the way we usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous:
it might be a CoE against any one of the self-ratifying documents that
make up the Treasuror report.
What a headache.
*** 3658 judge G.'s arguments:
TRUE. Specifically, G.'s CoE, quoted in the evidence for that case,
cast legal doubt on EXACTLY ONE PORTION of the Treasuror's Report dated
Aug 27 16:59:04 UTC 2018 - the portion that was a list of all instances
of Indulgences (the Indulgence column). No other section of the Report
was doubted.
*** 3659 caller G.'s arguments:
There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent announcements,
and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn
clear about intent announcements:
R1728:
1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method),
at most fourteen days earlier.
"Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the
announcement in question is "clear".
And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of
N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to
1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1.
While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default"
N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying
"if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not
synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1.
*** 3659 D. Margaux's gratuitous arguments:
The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ
is TRUE.
In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule
1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action
under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute.
My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended
action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I
won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and
unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed
if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1,
because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number
besides 1.
Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about
whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a
stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I
would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting
N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the
number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action.
And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not
offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any
number other than 1.
In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the
stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection,
and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be
judged TRUE.
*** 3659 judge Aris's arguments:
D. Margaux sent a public message saying, in part, "Also, maybe somewhat less
controversially, I note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke
R2465 on Thursday with regard to any players at that time who are located
on (-2, 2), which I think is my land, but if any one objects to that then
I won't." Receiving no objection, e did so. What no one realized (or at
least
said publicly) at the time was that D. Margaux had attempted to intend to
declare Victory by Apathy Without Objection. I am called here today to
decide
whether or not this attempt succeeded.
The main issue of this case is whether the intent was announced
"unambiguously
and clearly", as required by Rule 1728. There is some argument as to what
these words mean in this context, so I will now attempt to define them based
on my sense of their common definitions. I will assume that these words
describe
the resolution operation of a text, that is, the operation of figuring
out what
it means, given the lack of any reasonable alternative.
For something to be said "unambiguously" is for it to be said in such a
way that
cannot be misinterpreted. To put it formally, X is unambiguous if and
only if
the resolution operation, applied to X, completes and selects one possible
meaning. This meaning can be extremely difficult to understand. It can
involve
complex synonyms or chains of logic that require specialized training to
understand. The meaning must only be derivable from the information
available.
The important part of unambiguity is that after hearing an explanation
of what
a text means a person must accept that there is no other reasonable
interpretation.
Next, I turn to the question of what clarity means. It must not mean
unambiguity, because in that case specifying that both are required would be
redundant. The word "clearly" can mean "unambiguously", but just as often it
means "obviously". For something to be obvious means that its approximate
meaning must be easy to understand. Thus, X is clear if and only if the
resolution operation, applied to X, is relatively simple. Note that it need
not complete with only one alternative; all that is required is that it is
easy to get a reasonable understanding of the gist of what is said and what
effects the statement has.
It is important to understand that this definition of clarity applies
only when
both "unambiguous" and "clear" are specified. In other cases, "clear"
may take
on some amount of the meaning of "unambiguous", rather than "obvious",
but I'll leave that to be decided by a future CFJ. I will also note in
passing
that my definition appears to be consistent with CFJ 1460, the only prior
precedent I could find related to this case.
No one would conclude that D. Margaux's message was ambiguous. However,
it was certainly unclear. Circumlocutions such as "the method in R1728(1)"
and "if any one objects" do not make it sufficiently easy to understand that
there is even any formal intent occurring, let alone what it is. For this
reason, D. Margaux never validly intended to win by apathy and e has not
won the game. FALSE.
*** 3659 judge Aris's evidence:
Rule 2465/0 (Power=0.3)
Victory by Apathy
A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of
players. Upon doing so, the specified players win the game.
Rule 1728/38 (Power=3.0)
Dependent Actions
A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1
unless otherwise specified):
1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
than 8. ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
N = 1.)
2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer. ("With
Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
with a minimum of 1.
4. With Notice.
5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of
the following are true:
1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method),
at most fourteen days earlier.
2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
least 4 days earlier
3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
was announced at least T earlier.
4. At least one of the following is true:
1. The performer is the initiator.
2. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.
3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
action depends on support, the performer has supported the
intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
5. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
other rules.
6. If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was
given in the announcement of intent to perform the action, all
those conditions are met.
The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.
Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0)
Agoran Satisfaction
A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a
dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
(and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
perform the action.
The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent action
are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the
document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous
sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not
eligible to support it.
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if:
1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors;
2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters; and
3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24
hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent.
The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with the intent
if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
type of response.
*** 3660 judge G.'s arguments:
TRUE. In the absence of a specific prohibition in the Rules, a master,
including the Referee, CAN generally act on behalf eir zombie to point
a finger.
*** 3661 attempted fines referenced in statement:
I act on behalf of nihdel to Point eir Finger at the following players for
the following reasons:
V.J Rada, for being late in resolving CFJ 3648 assigned on 26 Aug 2018
at 6:44 PM UTC; and
Corona, for being late in resolving CFJ 3652 assigned on 26 Aug 2018
at 6:44 PM UTC.
*** 3662 message referenced in statement:
I submit this notice of honor:
-1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
+1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
*** 3662 caller Trigon's arguments:
In standard English, initials can be spelled with periods and
spaces between them, with only periods, with only spaces, or with nothing.
For example:
J. R. R. Tolkien
J.R.R. Tolkien
J R R Tolkien
JRR Tolkien
All four aforementioned names refer to the same person, John Ronald Reuel
Tolkien. Since all players are persons, it follows that initials should be
accepted using any method of separation.
Therefore, "D. Margaux" and "D Margaux" refer to the same person, a person
who registered during April of this year.
