Index ← 2615 CFJ 2616 2617 → text
==============================  CFJ 2616  ==============================

    Mojo's Disclosure has been flipped.

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

Caller:                                 allispaul

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by allispaul:                    27 Jun 2009 17:14:51 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     29 Jun 2009 07:06:18 GMT
BobTHJ recused:                         29 Jun 2009 13:53:38 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         03 Jul 2009 21:12:40 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     06 Jul 2009 04:59:19 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

> Judge Tanner Swett's Arguments:
>
> TRUE, because unless you believe a
> contract is a forum, you have no reason to attempt to flip its
> Publicity to Public; any attempt to do so is almost certainly an
> attempt to flip its Disclosure to Public.
>
> ========================================================================
>

I agree to the following:
{
This is a pledge and contract called Mojo.  Any player CAN join or
leave this contract at any time.  allispaul CAN terminate this
contract by announcement.
}
Its list of parties is {allispaul}.

I flip Mojo's Sentiment to Public.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

Technically, to provide full specification for flipping a switch, four
pieces of information are needed:

1.  The entity involved;
2.  The class that the entity is a member of that is associated with
     the switch;
3.  The name of the switch;
4.  The resulting state of the switch.

Most often, (2) and (3) are implied by (1) and (4).  For example, "I sit"
is short for "(1) I, (2) being a player, and thus having (3) a posture
switch, set it to (4) sitting".  This works as long as the switch state
is unique in the ruleset (not a state of any other switch) and the entity
is clearly a member of the class associated with that switch.

"Public", however, is the state of both the Publicity switch (for fora)
and the Disclosure switch (for contracts) so there is possibility for
ambiguity in the switch name.  How precise does one have to be?  Here's
some situations:

a.  "I make Entity X public."  Here, if (2) class is clear from (1) the
entity's name, it should work;  in other words, if X is clearly a
contract, this works to switch Disclosure.  If X is clearly a forum, it
works to switch Publicity.  If X is both a contract and a forum, or
its status as one or the other is unclear, it is unclear and doesn't
work.

b.  "I make Contract X's Publicity public."  This is the situation of
CFJ 2611, for which the Caller quotes the Judge's arguments.  Here we
have two competing senses; Contract X is a contract, but only fora have
Publicity.  This is very much a borderline case.  Here, the CFJ 2611
judge subjectively found that the contextual evidence is that the intent
to refer to 'Contract X' and not "Forum X" was clear, while the intent
to refer to "publicity" instead of "disclosure" was ruled a non-
substantial error, fueled perhaps by the similarity between between
"publicity" and "public".

As a borderline case, the judge made a subjective but reasonable
borderline call.  In other words, since (of 1-4 above) (1) and (4) were
specified, and (2) "contract not forum" could be strongly inferred from
(1) and not mistaken, the error in (3) could be treated as noise and -
since three of the four items were specified - the call could be made
to assume the correct element (3) of Disclosure instead of Publicity.
Note that the borderline nature of this means it only works as long as
the new state, entity, and contract-ness (and non-forum-ness) of the
entity were straightforwardly and abundantly clear, and the actual
intent of the actor and context of the action reasonably clear as well.

c.  "I make Contract X's Sentiment Public".  Here we've added a
different ambiguity: it is possible for a Contract to have a Sentiment
switch as well as a Disclosure switch.  So while we've specified
(1) and (2) correctly, we either have (3) correct and (4) in error, or
vice-versa.  It's not possible to tell from this if we should accept
that "sentiment" is correct (and "public" is wrong) or if "public" is
correct (and "sentiment" is wrong).  With at least two plausible
corrections that could be made to infer a successful action, there are
not enough clues to infer the correct specification, so the action was
not clearly communicated.

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