status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3812
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3812 ===============================
Proposal 8317 has AI 1.
==========================================================================
Caller: Gaelan
Judge: Aris
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Gaelan: 10 Feb 2020 00:04:49
Assigned to Aris: 19 Feb 2020 15:21:30
Judged FALSE by Aris: 24 Feb 2020 03:18:44
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>> PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade)
>>> FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg&
>>> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o
>>> PRESENT (0):
>>> BALLOTS: 11
>>> AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0)
>>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a
>> bunch of power=2 rules. In the distribution message, it is listed as
>> AI-2 in the top part:
>>> 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
>>
>> and AI-1 in the bottom part:
>>
>>> ID: 8317
>>> Title: Zombie trade
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I
>> doubt the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a
>> "new power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong?
>
> The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error
> within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of
> clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly
> distributed at AI=2 now.
>
> -Alexis
I’m not so sure it self-ratified, actually.
1551/21 reads, in part: {
An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however,
if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize
information in the main section, and the main section is internally
consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only
the main section.
}
1607/47 reads, in part: {
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal
Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public
document purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.
}
The Promotor’s message listed the attributes twice, and the text once, of
each proposal. So this depends on what “this portion” means: does it mean
the list at the top as well as the full proposals below, or just the full
proposals below?
If it means just the full proposals, then the proposal ratified at AI 1.
If it means both, then we’ve got an internally inconsistent document,
according to the 1551 clause I quoted. The question, then, is whether or
not the "document can be divided into a summary section and a main
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize
information in the main section.” The key bit here is “only purpose”—the
list at the top is actually part of another action (“I hereby distribute
each listed proposal…”), but that action isn’t part of the self-ratifying
document, so maybe in this context it only serves on purpose?
If the “summary” clause applies, then it ratified at AI 1.
If not, the document is internally inconsistent and didn’t ratify at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Aris's Arguments:
I don't think it's plausible that either the full text or the table is
in a distribution is a summary. Neither of them has any sort of marking
that indicates that it's secondary. In addition, the text is an essential
parameter of the decision, so the section containing the full text of the
proposal must be part of the distribution notice. Accordingly, I rule that
document was internally inconsistent and could not self ratify. I'll note
in passing that none of the information concerned involved the proposal
pool, which is self ratifying under Rule 1607, as the caller suggested;
instead, it involved a notice initiating an Agoran decision, which is self
ratifying under Rule 107. FALSE.
Judge Aris's Evidence:
Rule 107/21 (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:
1. The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
proposal 4781");
2. The voting method;
3. A clear description of the valid options;
4. The identity of the vote collector; and
5. Any additional information defined by the rules as essential
parameters.
The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period
for the decision. The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum
voting period for a decision with at least two options is five
days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options
CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not
ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the
same message.
The voting period for a decision cannot be set or changed to a
duration longer than fourteen days.
A public notice purporting to initiate an Agoran decision is a
self-ratifying attestation of the notice's validity.
Rule 1551/20 (Power=3.1)
Ratification
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified
to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if the
document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the
time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine
the minimal modifications. Such a modification cannot add
inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot
include rule changes unless the ratified document explicitly and
unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting properties
of the rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or multiple
substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
appropriate, the ratification fails.
An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified;
however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section
and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section
is to summarize information in the main section, and the main
section is internally consistent, ratification of the document
proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
The rules may define additional information that is considered to
be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such
definitions are secured at a Power Threshold of 3.
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
Rule 1607/46 (Power=3)
Distribution
The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving
and distributing proposals.
Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For
this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption
index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if
the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, and
coauthors of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating
such a decision is known as distribution, and removes the proposal
from the Proposal Pool.
The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
Pool at any time.
In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
proposal that was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of that
week, except for those excepted from automatic distribution by
other rules, or those that are otherwise removed from the Pool.
Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
Promotor.
If there is a Proposal in the Pool that it would otherwise be
IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute, then any player CAN
distribute that Proposal without 3 objections.
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion
of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is
self-ratifying.
==========================================================================
