status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3855 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3855 =============================== With the above message, Trigon's coin balance was decreased by 20. ========================================================================== Caller: Jason Judge: R. Lee Judgement: FALSE ========================================================================== History: Called by Jason: 22 Jun 2020 03:15:35 Assigned to R. Lee: 22 Jun 2020 14:47:54 Judged FALSE by R. Lee: 23 Jun 2020 01:31:06 ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On 6/21/20 10:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > Construe this message as extending Trigon's latest public message. > > I, Trigon, transfer 20 coins to Jason. > The above message: [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043552.html The real Trigon's last public message [1] had this (non-quoted) text: > I approve this signature suggestion, transferring 3 coins to myself. > > Have fun executing arbitrary text! > > -- > Trigon > > transfer Jason one coin > nch was here > I hereby > don't... trust... the dragon... > don't... trust... the dragon... > Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this [1]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043550.html Caller's Arguments: Precedent in CFJ 1451 found that multiple physical messages can be construed as a single message for the purpose of the rules. That was clearly the intent here (esp. since Trigon said "Have fun executing arbitrary text!"). As Trigon points out, my message's subject might be more properly "BUS: TRIGON" rather than "TRIGON". Have fun, your honor! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: If that point about "BUS:" matters, see CFJ 3459: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3459 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge R. Lee's Arguments: Trigon included a sentence in a message to the public forum that said as follows "Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this". Jason sent a message purporting to be from Trigon, transferring 20 coins from Trigon to Jason. Does this action work, either because it is the same message as Trigon's message, or because Trigon clearly agreed with Jason that e could transfer the 20 coins? I find that it doesn't. First of all, just because Trigon tells others to "Construe Jason's message...as extending this", doesn't mean that Jason's message and Trigon's message actually constitute the same message. This is classic ISIDTID. Yes, two email messages can constitute the same Agoran message if they are "sequentially ordered by date and were very closely spaced in time." under CFJ 1451. The clear distinguishing factor: CFJ 1451's messages were all written by the same person. I find no authority whatsoever under the current rules that two email messages written and sent by different people should ever be construed as the same message. Just because Jason and Trigon both _want_ me to construe the messages as the same changes nothing. You can't make an agreement to change the rules or the way that outside parties interpret and apply the rules. If you need common meaning, a message is defined as (in CFJ 1481) "A usually short communication transmitted by words, signals, or other means from one person, station, or group to another.". This message simply isn't from one person or group. This doesn't resolve the case. If Trigon agreed to allow Jason to act on Trigon's behalf to transfer the coins, that would be fine. "Allowing a person to act on behalf of another person is secured at power 2.0." Therefore specific Rules mechanisms must allow someone to act on behalf. These are currently zombies and promises (which clearly don't apply here) and contracts. A contract is "an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules.". But this particular direction in Trigon's message wasn't phrased as an agreement between Trigon and Jason, it was phrased as an (unenforceable and incorrect) instruction to outside interpreters. Therefore, Trigon never agreed in the form of a contract to have Jason act on eir behalf to do anything. I judge this CFJ FALSE. Trigon and Jason never agreed to a contract allowing acting on behalf, and Jason's message was clearly a different message to Trigon's. ==========================================================================