Index ← 1124 CFJ 1125 1126 → text
==============================  CFJ 1125  ==============================

    Rule 1883 has not been repealed.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Blob

Judge:                                  Crito
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Blob:                         25 Apr 1999 04:47:20 GMT
Assigned to Crito:                      26 Apr 1999 07:59:18 GMT
Judged TRUE by Crito:                   01 May 1999 02:46:07 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

On Steve sent a message with the following headers to nomic-business:

> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:11:36 +1000
> To: agora-business@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au<
> From: janet9981@yahoo.com
> Subject: Maximize your website's traffic!

This message contained the following text, deliberately hidden among
a piece of spam:

> I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled "An Object
> Lesson" delimited by triple dashes, and request that it have an
> Adoption Index of 4. --- Rule 1883 is repealed. A Power =3D 4 Rule
> entitled "An  Object Lesson" is created with the following text:
> "This Rule was inserted into the Ruleset to warn against the
> dangers of, and to commemorate Steve's long and ultimately
> successful battle against R1883 (Adoption of Proposals Without
> Objection)."--- I hereby announce my intention to adopt "A
> Separation of Powers" and "An Object Lesson" Without Objection.

1483 states, in part:

      A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers
      some collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear
      indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal.

I argue that there was no "clear indication" that "An Object Lesson"
was intended to become a Proposal. Common sense tells us that a
message like this, hidden in a large body of unrelated text, is
anything but a "clear indication", regardless of what the message
itself says.

Since "An Object Lesson" never became a Proposal, it could not be
adopted Without Objection, and so Rule 1883 remains unrepealed.

========================================================================

Judge Crito's Arguments:

Well, time is running short, so it's time to call the Court into
session.  I hereby enter a judgement of TRUE.

Reasoning:

Issue 1 - "clear indication"

First, I wish to express my thanks to all those who participated in the
recent (and enjoyable) debate, for their assistance in helping me
clarify my thoughts on this subject.

Throughout the recent debate I had been focusing my attention on the
definition of "clear" wrt R1483, and it seemed to me that it was a
toss-up as to whether "clear" must apply to the entire message or only
to the imbedded statement of intent to propose.  Ultimately, however, I
was persuaded that this judgement hinged more  upon the meaning of
"indication".

The message can be divided as follows:  A large amount of "irrelevant"
material; a statement of intent to propose; the text of a potential
proposal; a statement of intent to adopt two proposals Without
Objection.  But is that extra material really irrelevant?  Since it was
sent to the PF, we must evaluate it for significance wrt to Agora. And,
indeed, it is significant for its intent to distract Players from
reading the other parts of the message.  So it modifies all parts of the
message, including the statement of intent to propose.  IMO then, it
becomes an  integral part of the "indication" which it renders obtuse
and obscure.  As such it is not a "clear indication" as required by
R1483.

Issue 2 - Identity

One other thing I noticed when reviewing the post is that nowhere in the
message is any Player of Agora identified as the sender of the message
or as the author of the portions relevant to Agora.  Even the archives
still list the unknown "janet"-whatever as the author.  We only have
Steve's word that it was e who sent it.  Now I don't doubt Steve's
honesty in this regard, but I tend to think that this should not be
sufficient to regard the message as legally having been sent by em.  We
have often required Players in the past to present evidence (i.e. copies
of messages with headers) that they have actually done something they
claim to have done.  Currently in Agora, the messages and their headers
are the only "physical" evidence we have available to us.  Consider the
following scenarios:

1.  I give my office-mate some text describing actions significant to
    Agora and ask em to e-mail that text to agora-business, using eir
    own account.

2.  Blob comes by to visit me here in Boston, and while I step out for a
    couple of minutes to use the facilities, e sends a message to
    agora-business using my computer which I have carelessly left logged
    on.

Neither of the above leave any "physical" trace of who really sent the
message to a-b.  It either requires relying on someone's word or
establishing a consistent method of dealing with the issue of a
message's source.  I think the latter serves the interest of the game
better and so I will attempt to use the Courts to establish such a
principle here.

A message can be considered to have been sent by a given Player if and
only if the message clearly identifies that Player as the author.  If
the "sender" specified in the message header is one officially published
by the Registrar, then that establishes the Player's identity
definitively.

The "spam" post fails this test and, in the opinion of this court,
should be deemed not to have been sent by any Player, further
establishing a reason to find a judgement of TRUE, not to mention having
implications for the other actions attempted within this message.

========================================================================