status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4041
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4041 ===============================
In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without
additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was
last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at
cse.unsw.edu.au".
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: Janet
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 04 Jun 2023 12:45:57
Assigned to Janet: 04 Jun 2023 13:31:51
Motion to Extend filed: 11 Jun 2023 05:23:35
Judged FALSE by Janet: 18 Jun 2023 23:36:19
==========================================================================
[Linked to CFJ 4041]
Caller's Evidence:
Herald's Weekly Report:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html
Herald's Monthly Report:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html
Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob':
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html
Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob':
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html
Caller's Arguments:
The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were
both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with
an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles.
Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same
officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities
being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of
discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become
insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough
certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or
are these reports ambiguous?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janet's Arguments:
These cases are regarding the registration of a player who calls emself
"blob". Because a former and well-known player went by the name "Blob",
this has resulted in confusion about how officers should refer to either
player in reports. The question before this court is how these names are
to be interpreted in a short-term ephemeral report about current players
(CFJ 4040) and a long-term historical document about an unbounded set of
persons (CFJ 4041).
Agora is a game that highly values its history. As such, many former
players, even from long ago, are frequently referenced in reports. The
older Blob is no exception. E is referenced every month in the
Rulekeepor's Herald's, and Registrar's monthly reports. As such, most
current and long-standing players are aware of the existence of Blob
and, before the registration of the newer blob, would have recognized
the name as a historical player.
However, reports are not just for experienced players. The purpose of a
report is primarily to inform all interested persons, including new
players and onlookers who lack historical context, and secondarily to
act as a historical record. Both of these purposes demand clarity and
unambiguity, as prior cases on reports have found.
Here I focus on the first purpose, as it is more tangible. Let us
consider a hypothetical new player that has acquired the most recent
version of each report. Such a player would most certainly conclude that
the "blob" and "Blob" referenced in the two reports at issue are the
same person. (As to the casing difference, even the most perceptive and
inquisitive new player might fail to notice the difference, and those
that do would likely ignore it.)
Thus, a new player reading the reports at issue would be actively
mislead into believing one version of the gamestate, while a veteran
player would read the reports in a different, accurate way using their
historical knowledge. This is confusion, not communication. The reports
have failed in their primary duty to inform.
Therefore, at least the referenced Herald's monthly report must be
ambiguous in its reference to "Blob".
However, this leaves the question of whether the referenced Herald's
Weekly report is ambiguous in its reference to "blob". Both a veteran
player and a new player will come to the conclusion that the "blob"
referenced there is the same person listed as "blob" in the most recent
Registrar's report. It has also been suggested that the fact that the
Herald's weekly report is supposed to only list players is sufficient to
disambiguate. Nevertheless, I also find that this usage is ambiguous. It
is not good for the game for two documents, potentially sent seconds
apart, to use the same name (up to casing) to refer to two entirely
different persons.It's not clear to a player who hasn't kept perfect
track of the gamestate, and it's not clear to a future onlooker trying
to reconstruct gamestate.
CFJ 4040 judged FALSE.
CFJ 4041 judged FALSE.
==========================================================================
