Index ← 2696a CFJ 2696 2697 → text
==============================  CFJ 2696  ==============================

    ais523 successfully amended Points Party in the message quoted in


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2696a
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Murphy:                       19 Sep 2009 12:20:06 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        23 Sep 2009 22:28:16 GMT
omd recused:                            12 Oct 2009 23:41:14 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    12 Oct 2009 23:56:15 GMT
Judged FALSE by scshunt:                20 Oct 2009 00:12:05 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     20 Oct 2009 11:53:29 GMT
Appealed by Tiger:                      20 Oct 2009 13:18:26 GMT
Appealed by Walker:                     20 Oct 2009 15:59:27 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        20 Oct 2009 17:18:17 GMT
Appeal 2696a:                           20 Oct 2009 17:18:17 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   03 Nov 2009 21:10:23 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         07 Nov 2009 19:17:46 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     08 Nov 2009 19:30:54 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

"with 4 days notice" is close enough to "With Notice" that
it arguably counts as a synonym, in which case it failed because Rule
1728 (a) requires specifying the method up front.


Caller's Evidence:

ais523 wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 09:49 +0100, ais523 wrote:
>> For each public contract (see the list at
>> ), I
>> intend, without objection; I intend, without member objection; and I
>> intend, without 3 objections; to replace its entire text with the
>> following:
[scam text]
> First, here's the scam that was basically guaranteed to work at least
> partially, and it did. (The others can wait.)
> Points Party requires "4 days notice" for me to be able to amend it (not
> With Notice, but rather the ordinary-language sense); I gave the notice,
> and here's the amendment. As there have now been 4 days of notice (that
> I intended to amend Points Party), I hereby amend Points Party to the
> text shown within the {{{ }}} marks in the quote above.
> Some people managed to leave Points Party during the notice period
> (which is possible); however, most people who were party to it didn't,
> so I've still mousetrapped quite a number of people.
> I'll see about some of the higher-risk scams (that can affect other
> contracts too) some time soon, probably. (I think /this/ one is pretty
> clear-cut (see CFJ 2624; this one is even more obvious as it uses
> plain-language notice rather than Agoran intent), but if anyone thinks
> it doesn't work, let me know.)


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

With Notice didn't exist when the Points Party was created.
See also the endless precedents about the First Speaker, and the strong
implication of rule 1586; that using a rules-undefined term in a way
that clearly indicates that it isn't meant to be a term in the rules
doesn't cause it to become a use of a rules-defined term if a term
that's vaguely similar is later defined in the rules. (Besides, nothing
prevents the action taking place /even if/ it's defined to mean "With
Notice", simply because although it can't be done dependently, the
natural-language definition allows the action to be done independently.
This is possibly a bug in the dependent action rules.)


Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Rule 104 is Power 3, and also depends on the scope of "First" (which
the rules defining the current Speaker never explicitly attempted to

Rule 1586 clearly prevents hijacking of references to entities by name,
but does not clearly extend to procedures.  And it's only Power 2.

If the contract-defined method counts as With Notice, then Rule 2125(c)
prevents it from being used independently.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Pavitra  wrote:
> Ed Murphy wrote:
>> I recuse Pavitra from CFJs 2704 and 2706 and make em supine.
> Sorry about that, everyone.
> I might as well post my incomplete attempt at working through 2706:

Heh, here's mine:

There is definitely something of a conflict of interest here.  On one
hand, a judgement of TRUE means that I am mousetrapped, and
"Punished", meaning that ais523 can act on my behalf by announcement;
on the other, ais523 often works with me for the purpose of scams,
and, voluntarily or not, I might be influenced in seeing things from
his perspective, or the perspective of a scamster in general.

I hope to avoid both conflicts.  My general opinion on judging scams
is that-- as allowed and required by Rule 217-- there must be some
reactionism in the name of the good of the game.  However, it must be
limited: it is not in the good of the game that, having thought of a
clever scam, a player is thwarted because the judge twists the
language of the rules unreasonably just so the scam will fail.  ais523
explicitly accused Agora in general of this, commenting that people
would "turn around their arguments and start claiming it isn't a
dependent action after all" when attempting to pull off a scam that
the currently favored interpretation would allegedly enable.

But scamsters, remember: while the judge has the tendency to rule
unreasonably against a scam, the scamsters have the tendency to
interpret the rules unreasonably in favor of the scam-- usually
completely unconsciously, the belief in the scam genuine.  I have
believed scams to have a high chance of success which were laughed at
by the players-- for a recent example, look at the Ice Climbers scam--
and, as a player, laughed at the serious scams of others.  Let all
beware tunnel vision.

Wording scams-- exploiting real or imagined bugs in rules based on an
imprecision in the language-- are probably the easiest sort of scam to
pull off, if only because they're much more common than genuine
unambiguous loopholes.  However, I believe Agora doesn't provide a
good playing field for them. [...]

The facts:

- The Points Party contract allowed itself to be amended "with four
days notice".
- ais523 posted (buried in a maze of other intents) the equivalent of
the following: "I intend, without objection, to amend Points Party by
replacing its entire text with [mousetrap]."
- Several objections ensued, as predicted by all concerned.
- Four days later, e purported to do so with four days notice.

I believe the following questions need to be answered:
1. Does "with four days notice" count as With Notice? (even though the
contract was formed before the adoption of With Notice)
2. If so, does it define one method or two? (i.e. does the text
authorize a separate action in addition to matching the R1728
3. Does "I intend, without objection", count as ordinary-language
notice for taking the action, using a mechanism other than without


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

(note: I have good reasoning for this. I'm not explaining it because I
want to see what will happen if I don't)


Appellant ais523's Arguments:

I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this. Without being able to see coppro's
reasoning, I have no idea whether eir judgement is correct or not, and
therefore no basis upon which to decide whether to appeal or not. The same
applies to everyone else here. As a result, the judgement needs to be appealed
in case it's setting an undesirable precedent. (In addition, this verdict
could conflict with other verdicts that have not yet been made; the reasoning
would be needed to determine that, too.)


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, to former-Judge coppro's gratuitous arguments:

Before the Rules defined "With Notice" (definition added to the ruleset
on 28-Aug-09) the Points Party, itself a legal document, contained the
following definition (quoted from 7-Aug-09 Notary's report):

      "ais523 can amend this contract with 4 days notice; any
party to this contract can leave it during the notice period of a change
(in order to avoid being bound by the change; parties to this contest
are taken to consent to such a change if they do not leave during the
notice period)."

This clause not only defines a term that is different although similar
in phrasing to the later-added "With Notice", it contains a reasonably
clear (in common-language and common sense) description of what the term
means and implies.  The combination of linguistic and procedural
difference as defined in the contract is sufficient to maintain this as
a distinct mechanism from the Rules-added With Notice procedure.  Its
specificity within the contract, and secondarily its precedence in terms
of timing, makes it a separate mechanism from the "With Notice" that was
added to the ruleset.

So, the question is, did the following posting:
>> For each public contract (see the list at
>> ) [*], I
>> intend, without objection; I intend, without member objection; and I
>> intend, without 3 objections; to replace its entire text with the
>> following:
> [scam text]
constitute a sufficient "common-sense" notice as described by the Points
Party Contract?

To give notice is to give "warning or intimation of something", and in
this sense the best criteria to apply on whether warning or intimation
was given is one in R101; did the posting contain sufficiently clear
information that the parties had a "reasonable opportunity to review"
the change? [**]

Well, the posting did give warning that a change was in the offing for
the contract.  HOWEVER, in common-sense terms, ais523 stated that e
intended to make the change without a certain number of objections from
members - e didn't list any other conditions.  In particular eir posting
strongly implied (in common-laguage terms) that e would not change the
contract if a member objected to the change.

And e who lives by the common-sense definition, dies by the common sense
definition.  By giving a common-sense notice with the phrase "without
member objection", e implied fully that (if a member should object in
the common-sense use of the term, say through publicly saying that e
objected) that e would *not* make the change.  Therefore, the common-
laguage notice was a QUALIFIED notice, and gave other members a
"reasonable opportunity to review" the warning or intimation that ais523
would make the change if objections[***] were NOT received, and NOT a
reasonable opportunity to review the fact that e would make changes if
objections WERE received.   So, wholly as a common-sense matter, notice
to make a change where members objected to the change was not in fact

I have found statements of objection from other members (Murphy and
Tiger [see important caveat****]) and so Points Party members did *not*
have (common-lauguage) warning that ais523 would be amending the
contract under the circumstances that actually existed.

This Court finds FALSE.

[*] I'm assuming the web link above listed the Points Party at the time
of the above announcement; I can't guarantee this fact but it doesn't
seem to be in question.

[**] By "reasonable opportunity" I am not talking about the timing --
4 days is sufficient as the timeline was described and agreed to in the
contract beforehand -- but on whether the notice was sufficiently
descriptive and clear to be considered a notice that allows for review.

[***] Since the common-lanugage notice process in the contract does not
refer to R1728, neither do the objections.  R1728 only applies when the
contract itself contains the dependent action language.

[****] Membership list from 7-August-09 Notary's report.  I will assume
that these members had not left the contract at the time the change was
attempted - this might not be true.  If there are no such members who
(1) objected and (2) were members when the change was attempted 4 or
more days after the posting, this case should be remanded for a possible