Index ← 2529 CFJ 2530 2531 → text
==============================  CFJ 2530  ==============================

    ais523 published the NoVs which are the subject of CFJ 2480.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Quazie
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       18 May 2009 15:43:27 GMT
Assigned to Quazie:                     18 May 2009 16:02:19 GMT
Judged FALSE by Quazie:                 18 May 2009 17:08:14 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 15:46 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
>   1) For each active player not a party to this contract, ais523
>      publishes a Notice of Violation accusing that player of
>      violating the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthfulness) by claiming
>      that there are five lights.

I've just noticed that the NoVs never existed in the first place, or at
least were not published by me. Looking back at the text of what I
agreed to with Murphy (to see exactly what was going on here), which is
quoted above, Murphy didn't perform the action on my behalf that was
specified in the contract. For one, e missed Pavitra out of the list,
which means that e was trying to perform a /different/ action than the
one I agreed to. Also, the text above was "accusing"; IMO, you can
accuse someone of doing something without stating that they've actually
done it. (False accusations have been rather common in history; and it's
well known that an accusation is not proof.) Unfortunately, I was too
distracted at the time to notice that Murphy had performed the wrong
action.

I /strongly/ now believe that act-on-behalf should not be allowed by
private contracts, or at least contracts with unknown text; my
preference has always been to publish such contracts (and preferably
make them public) immediately before using them, so everyone knows what
is going on.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

I confirm that the text labeled 1) is part of the contract that the
scamsters in question agreed to.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Quazie wrote:

> Please post entire text of private contract (or at least the relevant
> parts) so that a judge can judge this will full information.

The full text appears between {} below.  The opening (which doesn't
allow me to fill in the missing parts later) plus 1) should lead to
a trivial FALSE.

{
If ais523, comex, coppro, and Murphy are all parties to this contract,
then Murphy CAN, and SHALL as soon as possible, act on behalf of the
other parties to perform the following actions, in order, in a single
public message:

  1) For each active player not a party to this contract, ais523
     publishes a Notice of Violation accusing that player of
     violating the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthfulness) by claiming
     that there are five lights.

  2) For each Notice of Violation from step 1, comex contests it.

  3) For each Notice of Violation from step 1, ais523 initiates a
     criminal case pertaining to it.

  4) For each criminal case from step 3, Murphy assigns it to coppro.

  5) For each criminal case from step 3, coppro judges GUILTY / SILENCE.

  6) comex, coppro, and Murphy become inactive.

  7) ais523 announces that e Wins by Solitude, then becomes inactive.

  8) comex becomes active, announces that e Wins by Solitude, then
     becomes inactive.

  9) coppro becomes active, announces that e Wins by Solitude, then
     becomes inactive.

 10) Murphy becomes active and announces that e Wins by Solitude.

 11) ais523, comex, and coppro become active.

 12) For each criminal case from step 3, ais523 intends to appeal its
     culpability, comex and Murphy support, and ais523 appeals it.

 13) For each appeal case from step 12, Murphy assigns it to the panel
     of ais523, comex, and Murphy.

 14) For each appeal case from step 12, ais523, comex, and Murphy
     opine OVERRULE / NOT GUILTY.

 15) ais523, comex, and Murphy agree to the panel destroying all Rests
     created in step 5.
}

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

For reference, here is the text Murphy used:

 1) For each of the following players, ais523 publishes a Notice of
    Violation alleging that that player violated the Power=1 Rule 2215
    (Truthfulness) by claiming that there are five lights:

the difference is "accusing that player of violating"  versus
"alleging that that player violated".  I'm not sure whether the
difference is meaningful.

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

Judge Quazie's Arguments:

The private contract stated that murphy may:

>   1) For each active player not a party to this contract, ais523
>      publishes a Notice of Violation accusing that player of
>      violating the Power=1 Rule 2215 (Truthfulness) by claiming
>      that there are five lights.
>


The action murphy performed was:

 1) For each of the following players, ais523 publishes a Notice of
    Violation alleging that that player violated the Power=1 Rule 2215
    (Truthfulness) by claiming that there are five lights:

      Arnold Bros (est. 1905)
      Ben Daniel
      BobTHJ
      C-walker
      Dvorak Herring
      Manu
      modulus
      Nameless
      Quazie
      Rodlen
      root
      Schrodinger's Cat
      Sgeo
      Siege
      Spitemaster
      Taral
      Tiger
      Tom
      Wooble
      Yally

These are not the same.  Key differences include the fact that the
performed action missed Pavitra, and that the performed action
'alleged' and did not 'accuse'.

Lets tackle the second point first.

Merriam-webster.com defines allege as: To assert without proof.
Merriam-webster.com defines accuse as: to charge with a fault or offense.

These are fairly similar statements.  To allege is just a specific
type of accusation, just one done without proof.  The point here is
that the action is different, as the words are not synonyms.
Regardless of the fact that the subset of people that the action was
performed on was different, the action wasn't the action that was
agreed upon.  As such Murphy could not perform the action on behalf of
asi523.

The other point, in which murphy did not perform the action on the
full subset, leads to another potential failing in regards to this
CFJ, because it did not fulfill the entirety of that clause in the
private contract.  This would normally NOT be a porblem, but murphy
was empowered to perform every action in order in a single message.
As he did not perform every action in order in a single message, and
that was the clause stipulating the Act on Behalf of, he wasn't
empowered to perform any action.

I judge FALSE ais523 did not submit the NOV's, based on both issues:
Pavitra and alleging.

I have no idea as to what actually happened as a result of the initial
message, but murphy did not perform any action on behalf of anyone.

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