Index ← 2111 CFJ 2112 2113 → text
==============================  CFJ 2112  ==============================

    Publishing the message "I object", in response to an attempt to
    perform a dependent action, causes an action to be taken by


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          23 Jul 2008 16:28:03 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     27 Jul 2008 22:41:39 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 01 Aug 2008 20:54:05 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

You could post a message like "This message is an objection to the
above action", which would object in a method other than announcement,
because the criterion of "by announcement" is that a person performs
an action by announcing that e performs it.  However, in the case of
"I object", this criterion is satisfied, even if Rule 2124 does not
require that an objection be an announcement.


Gratuitous Arguments by root:

No, the "by announcement" criterion of R478 is not satisfied, because
it specifically only applies to rule-defined actions.  Nowhere do the
rules define objecting to a dependent action as an action.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Although Rule 2124 defines it as a message that must be sent, we treat
objecting very, very much like an action, which we send
pseudo-announcements in order to perform.  Or is it a real
announcement?  Although Rule 478 defines "by announcement" only in the
context of actions that the Rules say we can take by announcement,
that simply means that "by announcement" is otherwise undefined.  Rule
2208 refers to *any* attempt to perform *any* action by announcement,
so we must infer a meaning for "by announcement" in other contexts.

Compare to contract-defined announcements: although the Rules do not
"define an action that CAN be performed 'by announcement'", so the
term is undefined, we still treat actions which a contract says can be
performed "by announcement" as effective.  I think it is game custom
(although the rule is still new) to treat Rule 2208 as applying to
such actions, too.


Judge woggle's Arguments:

Problematically for root's arguments, R478 doesn't explicitly define
"by announcement". It makes it clear what happens when the rules state
something CAN be performed by announcement and is followed by a
broader statement which uses "by sending a message", avoiding an
implication that it is limited to actions that the rules state CAN be
performed by announcement. But does R478 imply that "An action can be
taken "by announcement" only if the rules define it as such."? I don't
think there's any good reason to apply this restriction. But we can
logically conclude that any action is taken by announcing one performs
it can count as an action by announcement.

But does it apply when the rule-recognized mechanism recognizing the
action doesn't require an announcement that causes the action to occur
to take the form of announcing that the author performs it? This would
lead to some strange conclusions. "I submit the following ballot:
...." would be performing an action by announcement (submitting a
ballot) but the common unmarked replies to the distribution would not.
SImarily "I submit the following proposal: " would be performing an
action by announcement, but a less-well-marked proposal submission
would not.

While ordinarily these conclusions would be IRRELEVANT, R2208 makes
them highly relevant: these apparent attempts at clarifying the
actions would, in fact, increase the standard of clarity required for
the action to be effective. I do not think this restriction would be
in the best interest of the game. And, as I think this feature of
R2208 reflects, we tend to think of actions "by announcement" as
actions which have been defined with certain criteria for performance,
not as actions that we happen to choose a certain form for.

Therefore, I judge FALSE.

Some side issues:

That posting an objection to a dependent action is only recognized
indirectly (by causing the player to become an Objector) hurts the
case for "I object" to be taking an objection by announcement further.
We might take "I object" is a reasonable synonym for "I post an
objection", but that only helps so much. Would the rule's recognition
be sufficient effectiveness rendered by announcing it to render it an
"action by announcement" -- it is really no different than the
equivalent unregulated action, so I think not. (But perhaps you could
stretch things and find that it's also a synonym for "I become an
Objector", but that seems a real stretch.)

If we were to accept a broader definition of "action by announcement":
then if a rule stated "A player who has publicly posted an odd number
of Es in eir messages within the current Agoran Month is a Foo, and
other players are a Bar", would we then conclude that "I hereby turn
myself into a Foo." is an action by announcement?


Judge woggle's Evidence:

(from R2124)
     [...] An Objector to a
     dependent action is a first-class player (or other person
     explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing
     that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted
     (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
     to perform the action.

(from R478)
     Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
     announcement", a person performs that action by announcing that
     e performs it.  Any action performed by sending a message is
     performed at the time date-stamped on that message.