status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3747 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3747 =============================== Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets the clarity standards of R2595/0. ========================================================================== Caller: G. Judge: Aris Judgement: TRUE ========================================================================== History: Called by G.: 25 Jun 2019 18:02:42 Assigned to Aris: 30 Jun 2019 20:03:52 Judged TRUE by Aris: 07 Jul 2019 23:07:49 ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On 6/24/2019 11:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
This is probably the easiest way to do this: For each number X that is an integral multiple of 0.1 not less than 1.0 and not exceeding 5.0, I do the following: { I declare intent, with X Agoran Consent, to banish The Ritual, pursuant to Rule 2596 ("The Ritual"). I engage in DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER about the intent created in the previous sentence. }
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller's Arguments: tl;dr it probably works, but some recent rule changes *might* mean some old precedents need to be revisited via CFJ. Longer answer: There's some deep precedents around this type of thing. Strictly speaking you haven't declared intent at all these different levels - you've just *said* you did. To actually do it, you have to write all of those out (all 501 of them). However, it was long-ago recognized that absolutely requiring 501 statements was a pain in the butt for everyone and was actually *less* clear than a loop like you did, because someone could hide something in a long list. So we (wholly through precedent) found that "shorthand" works (e.g. a loop procedure) - on the condition that it would be fairly trivial to write out the whole thing anyway. The logic is as long as you're just saving us all a little time and the looping is really clear, it's just a shorthand. But if you try to do things that would be "hard to impossible" to write out in full, it fails because you're saying you did something that you couldn't practically do. So, for example, you couldn't use an infinite loop to make an infinite series of intents. You couldn't use a finite but "excessively large" loop either - there's an email size limit on the archives (a bit bigger than the FLR, idk exactly) so the idea is if it was really long, we'd say "since a fully-written out email wouldn't be possible to send, a loop of that size doesn't work either". In your case 501 single-line intents is pretty small, so no problem. HOWEVER. That's the general case for all actions. We recently changed the langauge for intents in particular. We changed:
1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s)
to:
1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s)
The addition of "conspicuously and without obfuscation" was purposefully added for the sole purpose of cracking down on attempts to hide intents, including through algorithmic processes that are opaque. This is one of the strictest communication standards in the rules, and we haven't put too much case law into figuring out what it means. Does your loop meet these standards - it seems *reasonably* clear to me, but in light of the new stringent standards I wouldn't be too horribly surprised if a CFJ found the other way. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Aris's Arguments: This case concerns the exact meaning of the phrase "unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation". It is well established what it means of someone to say something "unambiguously" and "clearly" (and clear that the announcement in this case was both), but current Agoran law does not define the terms "conspicuously" and "without obfuscation", which may well be the highest standard that has ever been imposed for publication. First off, I'm going to discuss how this absurdly high standard came to be, not so much because it's judicially necessary as because I think it's interesting. It used to be that announcements of intent to perform dependent actions only had to be public, unambiguous, and clear. At some point, players realized that they could slip such announcements into places where others would be unlikely to read them. While such actions had perhaps previously happened from time to time, they became a day to day occurrence. At first everyone was just amused; there was a general feeling that players needed to be more careful, and that the scamming player had gotten one up on the others. However, as such scams continued to be repeated, it became clear that no reasonable quantity of effort was sufficient to prevent further scams. Some players began to add an section to every public message they sent objecting to intents. Some scammers began using complex patterns of obfuscation to evade detection via search. Eventually, everyone got tired of the whole mess and decided to deal with it one and for all. The solution was the addition of the conspicuously and without obfuscation standard. Something is conspicuous if it "stand[s] out so as to be clearly visible" (Google). Of late, a few players have taken to putting warnings in all caps at the top of messages containing dependent actions. This works, but is probably more than necessary to make a dependent action clearly visible. All that is really required is that a reasonable player would be able to tell after glancing at a message that it contains the dependent action. E should not need to read thoroughly, merely to look at the message. For long messages, a warning is probably necessary, but for short messages any part is probably conspicuous, since a player glancing at a short message likely skims all of it. Without obfuscation is a harder standard to pin down. To "obfuscate" something means to "render [it] obscure, unclear, or unintelligible" (Google). What this means in practice is harder to say. It does seem pretty unlikely that it would forbid all indirection though; the ban is more on the misleading kind of indirection. I propose a two part standard. First, a reasonable Agoran reading the message must, at a glance, be able to understand the gist of the dependent action being announced. The rationale for this rule is that it is unreasonable to expect that player will pay attention to an announcement unless e has enough information to decide whether it is relevant to em. However, the details of the action may require more thought, just so long they remain easy to understand (I'd say anything that requires the average Agoran more than 30-60 seconds is probably out). Anything more than that is obscure enough that it's obfuscated. For instance, an announcement that required following a complex page long algorithm to figure out the value of N would be obfuscated, since a player would have trouble figuring out the value of N even if e cared enough to try. Let's apply this standard to the actual case. The announcement of intent was certainly conspicuous, appearing in plain view and taking up most of the body of a message. It is easy, at a glance, to tell the basics of the situation: it is an intent to banish the ritual with Agoran Consent. Finally, it is possible to work out what's going on without much trouble. It maybe requires a single reread to determine what's going on, but it wouldn't take the average Agoran more than that. I therefore determine that this intent met the clarity standards of R2595/0. TRUE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Aris's Evidence: Rule 2595/0 (Power=3) Performing a Dependent Action A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in Rule 1728 thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used; 2. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation states: * the value of T, if the action is to be taken with T Notice; and * the value of N, if N is not equal to 1 and the action is to be taken Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N Agoran Consent; 3. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule was published: * within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With N Support; * between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice; or * between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to be performed With T Notice; 4. At least one of the following is true: * the performer is the initiator; * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer; or * 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; and 6. The conditions are all met, if any conditions were stated in the announcement of intent referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule. The performer SHOULD publish a list of supporters and objectors if the action is to be taken with N Agoran Consent. ==========================================================================