I file an motion to extend CFJ 3885's deadline (specifically including the draft below - I don't think my judgement will change much but there's at least one substantive comment I won't get to before the deadline tomorrow).
-G. On 10/10/2020 2:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 10/9/2020 10:47 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> The below CFJ is 3885. I assign it to G.. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3885 >> >> =============================== CFJ 3885 =============================== >> >> On or about 10:35:46 UTC on 4 Oct 2020, PSS published a >> self-ratifying report on the value of the instances of the Karma >> switch. >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> Caller: Jason >> >> Judge: G. >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> History: >> >> Called by Jason: 04 Oct 2020 22:10:43 >> Assigned to G.: [now] >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> Caller's Evidence: >> >> Possible "report": >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-October/014273.html >> >> Rule 2162/12 [Excerpt]: >> >> A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, >> and specify the following: >> 1. The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. >> No >> other entity possesses an instance of that switch. >> 2. One or more possible values for instances of that switch, >> exactly one of which should be designated as the default. No >> values other than those listed are possible for instances of >> that switch, except that, if no default is specified, then >> rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the "null" value is a >> possible value for that switch, and is the default. >> 3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances >> of >> that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified >> otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that >> switch whose value is not its default value; a public document >> purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is >> self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their >> default value. >> >> Rule 2379/0 (Power=1) >> No News Is Some News >> >> If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that >> list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty. >> >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> For a switch report to be self-ratifying, it must "purport" to be the >> switch portion of the officer's report. While the document itself does >> not contain any text suggesting it is a report, the subject line does, >> which may be enough to make the document purport to be a report. >> >> The content may or may not qualify as being a report. The empty document >> omits all instances of the switch and all values, which, if it was a >> report, would imply that all values of the Karma switch have a default >> value. However, this may contradict Rule 2379, since Rule 2162 could be >> read as requiring a list of non-default values, even though it never >> explicitly requires a "list". That would imply that no empty document >> could ever purport to be a switch report, since it would either need to >> include a list of non-default values or the fact that such a list is >> empty. >> >> ========================================================================== > > Draft Judgement: > > A "message" isn't explicitly defined by the rules, the closest thing is > here in R478/38: > >> A public message is a message sent via a public forum > > So the actual definition of "message" uses its common definition. > > This leaves the question open: when using email to send a message, are the > message's headers are part of the message, or are they metadata (i.e. an > envelope) containing the message, but not part of the message itself? > Time to bring out R217. > > Common definition: Person A sends me a physical letter. Person B asks me > "what was Person A's message?" I would respond with the contents of the > message. The postmark, stamp, and other details of the envelope would be > pretty much irrelevant to answering (though may provide context or > identifying information if I ask "which message?", so they are still part > of the metadata for the message) So common definitions would say the > message is the contents (body of the email) not its headers. > > Past Judgements/custom: CFJ [I-haven't-found-it-yet] found that a message > sent to two fora simultaneously (i.e. with two fora in the To: or Cc: > headers) is a single message. But those messages will have different > headers by the time they are delivered, so calling the headers "part of" > the message would contradict the precedent that there's only one message. > > Common sense: While a "message" isn't explicitly defined, the > "publication" is specific in R478/38: > >> To "publish" or "announce" something is to send a public message >> whose body contains that thing. > > Therefore, you cannot "publish" anything that's outside of the message's > body. It would be really weird to say "I didn't publish the headers of > the message but I published the body, but the headers are still part of > the public message". It makes much more sense to say "I published a > message consisting of the body, and the headers associated with the > message provide evidence of when/how I did so". > > Good of the game: In places of the rules where headers of a message are > called out explicitly (subject line in R2614/5, 2463/3, date-stamp in > R478/38) it breaks nothing to say "this is envelope information of the > message, not the message itself". And it's better for the game to assume > the common sense interpretation above: that "public message" and > "published message" are the same thing (it's really confusing otherwise). > > Therefore, the finding is that a "public message" consists solely of its > body, and the metadata headers are associated with the public message, but > not "part of" the message. > > So then, turning to the definition of "public document" in R2202/9: > >> A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. > > If the public message is the body only, then a public document does not > include its headers. So if a document must "purport" something (i.e. > allege to be a report) that allegation must be in the body of the message. > > Since that is not the case here (the only possible purporting is in the > message's headers, not its body, so the purporting was not actually > published or part of a document), this CFJ is FALSE.
