============================== CFJ 1722 ==============================
On or around August 15, 2007, root initiated an Agoran decision to
make bd_ inactive.
Called by root: 15 Aug 2007 16:51:45 GMT
Assigned to Zefram: 15 Aug 2007 17:01:01 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram: 20 Aug 2007 10:39:39 GMT
Rule 107/5 states that a notice of intent to initiate a decision is
invalid if it lacks certain information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week. The necessary information is:
(a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
(b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to
enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In
particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is
always sufficient for this purpose.
(c) The identity of the vote collector.
(d) Any additional information required by the rules for this
The phrasing of root's announcement does not explicitly include the
information required in sections (a), (b), or (c). As far as I am
aware, there is no additional information required by (d) in this
However, I contend that (a) is implicit in the phrase "...intend to
make bd_ inactive, without objection..."; that (b) is implicit in the
phrase "...without objection of any active first-class player"; and
that (c) is implicit in the phrase "I intend...".
Judge Zefram's Arguments:
root's message read
|I intend to make bd_ inactive, without objection of any active
E purportedly initiated an Agoran decision under R107:
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision.
R107 also sets other conditions regarding information that must be
supplied. Eir authority apparently comes from R1728:
An announcement of intent to perform a dependent action,
unambiguously describing the action and method of dependent
action, initiates the Agoran decision of whether to approve the
A player may flip another player's activity to Inactive without
So for root's message to initiate an Agoran decision, eir message must:
a. announce intent to perform a dependent action;
b. unambiguously describe the action to be performed;
c. unambiguously describe the method of dependent action;
d. set forth intent to initiate the Agoran decision;
e. meet R107's conditions regarding information to be supplied.
Criteria a and b are clearly met by "I intend to make bd_ inactive".
Criterion c, not discussed in the initiator's arguments, is trickier.
root described the method of dependent action as "without objection of
any active first-class player". R2124 names the method as "Without
Objection", and simply using this name (as R2130 does) would clearly
be adequate to unambiguously describe it, but root does not do that.
Taking R2124 and R1728 together, the method amounts to "without the
explicit objection of anyone who was an active first-class player
at the start of the voting period except for the vote collector".
root's description certainly does not incorporate all of these elements.
However, it is customary to be quite liberal about the form of such
notices. root's use of the words "without objection" is certainly
sufficient to distinguish Without Objection from any other defined method
of dependent action. The "of ..." clause is imprecise, but approximates
the true electorate, and so I find that "without objection of any active
first-class player" is sufficiently close to be regarded as a synonym for
"Without Objection". Thus criterion c is met.
Criterion d is not met by any explicit wording. However, this aspect has
already been addressed by CFJ 1650. In that CFJ judge Murphy found that
a message that said "distribution of proposals" followed by a list of
proposals was sufficient to initiate the Agoran decisions on whether to
adopt those proposals, via rule 1607, despite never explicitly mentioning
Agoran decisions. I therefore find that an announcement of intent to
perform a dependent action implicitly sets forth the intent to initiate
the Agoran decision of whether to approve the action, even if there is
no explicit mention of Agoran decisions.
Criterion e is the only one considered by the initiator's arguments.
Of the items that R107 requires to be supplied, (a) is clearly identified
by the announcement of intent to perform a dependent action. (c) is
implicit due to the mechanics of dependent actions, just as in CFJ 1650
the identity of the vote collector was implicit due to the mechanics of
proposal distribution and adoption. The additional information for (d)
is only the items required by R1728 which I have already discussed.
I am only in doubt regarding item (b), a description of the class of
eligible voters. R107 is not clear on whether the description needs
to be accurate for the entire voting period or only instantaneously
correct at the time of announcement. I believe the latter is the most
natural interpretation (albeit the less useful), so I am not troubled
by root's omission of the "at the start of the voting period" part of
R1728's specification of the electorate. However, eir description was
clearly in error in that it failed to exclude the vote collector, who
was an active first-class player.
If root had not attempted to describe the electorate then, applying
CFJ 1650's findings, it would be clear that the correct description
was implicit. So it remains to be determined whether the "of any active
first-class player" clause is to be interpreted as a specification of
the electorate, and (if so) whether that overrides the correct implicit
specification. Applying the customary liberalism in the formulation of
notices, I find that "without objection of ..." is an acceptable way
to explicitly specify the electorate. I also find that this explicit
specification does override the implicit specification, because it would
be most unreasonable and greatly to the detriment of the game if things
that remain unsaid took precedence over those which are said.
So root's notice specified the electorate explicitly but incorrectly.
I find that this constitutes lack of required information within the
meaning of R107. This particular error has not been pointed out until
now, and if it were not pointed out at all then root's notice would be
effective under R107. However, this judgement correctly identifies the
lack, and does so well within the week allowed by R107. Therefore root's
message did not succeed in initiating an Agoran decision.
There is also some uncertainty regarding the interpretation of the
statement of this CFJ, due to which CFJ 1723 was called. I don't need
to rule on whether the statement of this CFJ is sufficiently synonymous
with that of CFJ 1723, nor on whether either is an accurate description
of the nature of the Agoran decision that root attempted to initiate.
root's message did not initiate any Agoran decision, so I must judge