Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:51 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > > > governed by this in R478: > > > > > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > > > >> and clearly specifying the action > > > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as > a > > > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines > what > > > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation > > announcement > > > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > > > > > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > > > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than > the > > > creation and specifications being separate? > > > > > > -- > > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the > > mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a > > proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following > other > > attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. > > > I think the "and" implies that the two actions are linked. It would be > useful, however, to know how strong a linkage different forms (participles > vs conjunctions, "and" vs "and then", etc) create. > > -Aris > > -Aris > > > > > > I think all of this discussion is advisory because this CFJ deals with a more clearly atomic action and the finer points of ambiguity (in ways that nobody would ever actually create a proposal) can be safely left for another day. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > > governed by this in R478: > > > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > > >> and clearly specifying the action > > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as a > > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines what > > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation > announcement > > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than the > > creation and specifications being separate? > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the > mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a > proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following other > attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. I think the "and" implies that the two actions are linked. It would be useful, however, to know how strong a linkage different forms (participles vs conjunctions, "and" vs "and then", etc) create. -Aris -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > governed by this in R478: > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > >> and clearly specifying the action > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as a > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines what > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation announcement > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than the > creation and specifications being separate? > > -- > Jason Cobb > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following other attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > governed by this in R478: > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously >> and clearly specifying the action > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as a > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines what > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation announcement > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than the creation and specifications being separate? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On 5/15/2020 3:01 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> * "I create/submit/etc. a proposal, and I specify each of the
> following properties: [shorthand]" ("create" and "specifying" are
> separate verbs, so the creation is phrased as two speech acts)
I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's
governed by this in R478:
> that person performs that action by unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action
So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as a
single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines what
specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation announcement
to meet R478's "clear specification" standards.
-G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On 5/13/20 5:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> === CFJ 3833 ===
>
> In the above message, Trigon created a proposal.
>
> ==
There's probably some logical flaws and omissions in here, but I've done
my best to maintain and expand the precedent here.
Draft judgement in CFJ 3833:
CFJ 3744 held that, if a player does the equivalent of writing the
optional specifications of a proposal as separate speech acts when
creating it, any invalid optional specifications revert to the default
value. It also held that, if the speech act of creating the proposal is
phrased as an single action and is constrained enough, the creation
succeeds or fails atomically. I do not believe this is the conclusion I
would have reached, but I am nevertheless bound by precedent.
Rule 2350 enables creating proposals "by announcement". According to
Rule 478, this means a player CAN perform it "by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it".
In eir message, Trigon appears to "clearly specify" the action of
creating a proposal with title "Agora plays table tennis", AI 0.1, no
coauthors, and the provided text. It also appears that e has specified
only a single action (creating a proposal), rather than the multiple
actions required by CFJ 3744 to permit non-atomic specifications (I
create a proposal, I specify an attribute, I specify another attribute).
Given that the AI was invalid, and the creation was phrased as a single
act, under CFJ 3744, Trigon did not create a proposal in eir message. I
find FALSE.
More generally, I find that any shorthand in which the creation of the
proposal is phrased as a single action (even those including shorthand)
qualifies as atomic under CFJ 3744, i.e. that speech actions creating
optional specifications must be made explicit in order to be non-atomic.
This means that all of the following are atomic proposal creations:
* "I create/submit/etc. the following proposal: [shorthand]"
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with the following attributes:
[shorthand]"
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with title 'A creative title', AI
0, and text 'Do something.'"
* "H. Promotor, I do hereby submit unto you this most honorable
proposal, with the hopes that it be adopted: [shorthand]"
It also means that all of the following are non-atomic proposal
creations, as the specifications are phrased as separate speech acts
from the proposal creation:
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal, and I specify each of the
following properties: [shorthand]" ("create" and "specifying" are
separate verbs, so the creation is phrased as two speech acts)
* "I create/submit/etc. a proposal, specifying that the title is 'A
creative title', specifying that the AI is 0, and specifying that
the text is 'Do something.'"
* "Most Dishonorable Promotor, I rudely submit this proposal, leaving
you to figure out which defaults apply: I specify the title to be
'The best proposal ever'. I specify the AI to be 100. I specify the
text to be 'haha'".
Evidence:
Rule 2350/12 [Excerpt]:
> A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
> other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
> specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
> attributes:
>
> * An associated title.
>
> * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the
> author).
>
> * An adoption index.
>
> * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its
> creation.
Rule 478/38 [Excerpt]:
> Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
> announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously
> and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> it.
--
Jason Cobb
