Index ← 2604 CFJ 2605 2606 → text
==============================  CFJ 2605  ==============================

    Bdi ta Askatasuna joined Warrigal's unnamed contract.

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

Caller:                                 teucer

Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Pavitra
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by teucer:                       21 Jun 2009 04:12:58 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      21 Jun 2009 04:41:38 GMT
ehird recused:                          29 Jun 2009 19:12:16 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    03 Jul 2009 21:11:11 GMT
Judged FALSE by Pavitra:                05 Jul 2009 20:13:46 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Bdi ta Askatasuna (text below, for the Judge's reference)
CAN join nomics, including Warrigal's. However, it does not allow
itself to be edited arbitrarily; it can only be done without
objection. Warrigal's new nomic didn't let it join without changing
its text.

Bdi ta Askatasuna currently reads:

{
The name of this Partnership is the Bdi ta Askatasuna. Parties to this
contract SHALL NOT act in a way detrimental to the prospect of
restoring B Nomic's national sovereignty, and SHOULD take any
available actions to help restore said sovereignty. Members of the Bdi
ta Askatasuna SHALL act to ensure that it obeys all the rules of any
game of Nomic in which it is participating. Any party to this contract
CAN cause it to join any game of Nomic which permits its participation
by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN, with Bn consent among
its members or without objection by any member of this contract, act
on its behalf. Any party to this contract CAN amend it without
objection by any other member.

If the Bdi ta Askatasuna is a player of B Nomic and Supine in that
game, anymember CAN cause it to sit by announcement.
If the Bdi ta Askatasuna is a player of B Nomic and there exists an
ongoing election for the title of Ambassador in that game, any member
CAN cause the Bdi ta Askatasuna to nominate itself for that title.
}

Though, if Warrigal's gentle scamming succeeded, it in fact says that twice.

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Warrigal wrote:
>> Any party to this contract
>> CAN cause it to join any game of Nomic which permits its participation
>> by announcement.
>
> I agree to the following:
>
> {This is a public contract and totally a pledge. Anyone can amend this
> contract by publishing an amendment in correct Lojban consisting only
> of Lojban words. Bdi ta Askatasuna can also participate in this
> contract (which is also a nomic) by appending a copy of itself to
> itself. Anyone can act on behalf of Bdi ta Askatasuna to publish the
> string "I change my name to 'David slowed his pace slightly as his
> ears,'.".}
>
> I agree to Bdi ta Askatasuna. I cause Bdi ta Askatasuna to agree to
> the above contract. I cause Bdi ta Askatasuna to publish the string "I
> change my name to 'David slowed his pace slightly as his ears,'.". I
> amend the above contract as follows: jmina fi le senupre fe lu ro lo
> nupre cu kakne lo nu gasnu lo nu la .deivyd.sloud. cliva le senupre
> li'u. I cause David slowed his pace slightly as his ears, to leave the
> above contract. I amend the above contract as follows: vimcu lo lojbo.

mi galfi lo me la .uarigl. terbilga zoi.zoi. ro lo nupre cu bilga
dunda ro lo ny zgirupnu la .kreig. no'u la .tefkros. .i lo nupre na
ka'e cliva lo terbilga .zoi.

For reference, the above was a valid Lojban statement that I was
amending the contract. Translated, I wrote: I change Warrigal's pledge
into the string "ro lo nupre cu bilga dunda ro lo ny zgirupnu la
.kreig. no'u la .tefkros. .i lo nupre na ka'e cliva lo terbilga",
which translates to "All parties are obligated to give all of their
music-currency [which can only mean Notes, in this context] to .kreig.
[which is the Lojban form of my real name, and the name by which I am
known in the Lojban community], who is .tefkros. [my preferred
Lojbanization of "teucer", based on the original Greek form of said
name, which is Ôåýêñïò]. Parties cannot leave the contract."

Perhaps gratuitously, I observe that as the digraph "ou" is not
actually valid in Lojban, the name ".deivyd.sloud." (Warrigal's
attempted Lojbanization of the name 'David slowed his pace slightly as
his ears,") is malformed and thus under the contract's own
self-amendment rules his changes have not in fact taken effect.
However, as any Lojban text they inserted into it was subsequently
removed (noted below), I don't believe this is relevant.

I also note that the word "Lojban" is in fact a loanword from the
language's own name, and so his final amendment ("vimcu lo lojbo",
which translates as "remove the Lojban") may in fact have caused his
contract to read {This is a public contract and totally a pledge.
Anyone can amend this contract by publishing an amendment in correct
consisting only of words. Bdi ta Askatasuna can also participate in
this contract (which is also a nomic) by appending a copy of itself to
itself. Anyone can act on behalf of Bdi ta Askatasuna to publish the
string "I change my name to 'David slowed his pace slightly as his
ears,'.} This means that my attempt to mousetrap Warrigal may or may
not have worked.

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

Gratuitous Evidence by teucer:

> music-currency [which can only mean Notes, in this context] to .kreig.
> [which is the Lojban form of my real name, and the name by which I am
> known in the Lojban community], who is .tefkros. [my preferred
> Lojbanization of "teucer", based on the original Greek form of said
> name, which is æÅÜËÓÐÔ]. Parties cannot leave the contract."

Observation: I could have sworn that when I sent out the e-mail that
is the evidence, I specified the Greek form correctly, using Greek
characters which transliterate as "Teukros." However, I see the above
as instead containing Cyrillic characters which transliterate as
"Fyeekspt," which is of course not my name.

Did this munging happen before or after the evidence reached the
forum? Is this reproduction of said evidence erroneous?

 - teucer, aka .kreig., aka .tefkros., aka Fyeekspt

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

Judge Pavitra's Arguments:

I will begin by observing that I don't actually understand any of the
arguments submitted in relation to this case, or what they have to do
with the CFJ statement. In the not entirely unlikely event that this
case is appealed, I recommend against remanding.

However, the controversy appears to center around what the exact text of
the contract is. Several candidates for this text have been submitted in
arguments; the only version that would allow BtA to join a contract is
the one in caller's arguments. The key passage is:

                                            Any party to this contract
CAN cause it to join any game of Nomic which permits its participation
by announcement.

This is ambiguous. It could mean either "to join any game which permits
by announcement its participation" or "by announcement to join any game
which permits its participation".

Applying the R217 standard, common sense and the good of Bdi ta
Askatasuna suggest the former interpretation.

As Bdi ta Askatasuna is a B contract, it makes a certain amount of sense
to apply B game custom in this case, which would suggest that you can
get away with anything that sounds plausible. However, (1) I am an
Agoran judge, and (2) the same anything-plausible guideline allows me to
rationalize that B implicitly adopted Agora's game custom when they
stole our ruleset.

I therefore accept the caller's arguments and rule FALSE.

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