Index ← 2732 CFJ 2733 2734 → text
==============================  CFJ 2733  ==============================

    The decision on whether to adopt the proposal Pragmatize Strict
    Ordering has been initiated.

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

Caller:                                 Tiger

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Tiger:                        14 Nov 2009 23:02:26 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     17 Nov 2009 11:39:30 GMT
ais523 recused:                         24 Nov 2009 14:19:12 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                28 Nov 2009 23:49:42 GMT
Machiavelli recused:                    14 Dec 2009 17:10:17 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    14 Dec 2009 17:13:30 GMT
scshunt recused:                        03 Jan 2010 18:30:40 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         08 Jan 2010 23:10:58 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      13 Jan 2010 20:27:25 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

2009/11/8 Ed Murphy :
> Tiger wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/4 Ed Murphy :
>>> I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>>  * First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
>>>    wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
>>>
>>>  * Second attempt to assign ID number 6546 was successful, as the
>>>    first attempt wasn't.
>>>
>>>  * Attempt to assign ID number 6548 was unsuccessful, as 6546 was
>>>    successfully assigned on the second attempt.
>>>
>>>  * Each of these three attempts was accompanied by an attempt to
>>>    initiate a voting period, which was successful iff the attempt
>>>    to assign an ID number was.
>>>
>>> If I've got this wrong, then let me know, otherwise I'll resolve
>>> 6542-48 on this basis in a few days.
>>>
>>> Unofficial tallies:
>>>
>>>  * 6546a (if somehow effective) would be adopted (8F 2A)
>>>  * 6546b (if effective) would be adopted (3F 2A)
>>>  * 6548 (if effective) would have its voting period doubled (1F 2A
>>>      and only 3 voters vs. quorum of 5)
>>>
>> Terribly sorry for taking so long to answer this. What you said made
>> sense when I first read it, but now I'm not so sure.
>> A proposal is a body of text, and the distribution of proposals is
>> never defined, so the ordinary-language sense of the word is used.
>> That means that the first distribution of the proposal was successful,
>> meaning that the ID assignment was also successful. The only place
>> where the rules concern themselves about getting the author right is
>> the initiation of the decision. That means the first initiation
>> attempt failed due to wrong author and the second one failed due to me
>> not specifying the options and the vote collector.
>> The third attempt tried to change the previously assigned ID, which is
>> impossible, and then tried to initiate a decision of whether to adopt
>> a proposal that didn't exist. So in the end, the proposal "Pragmatize
>> strict ordering" never had a decision initiated regarding it.
>> CoE on the assessor's voting results: the decision about proposal 6546
>> never existed.
>
> CoE denied.  This falls apart at the beginning, as botched distribution
> no longer creates proposals.  Rule 106, relevant excerpts:
>
>      A proposal is a fixed body of text which has been made into a
>      proposal using a process specifically described in the Rules.
>
>      A player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a
>      body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to
>      become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal
>      Pool.
>
> Contrast with the corresponding relevant excerpt from 106/2 through /18:
>
>      A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
>      including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
>      other explicit changes to the gamestate.
>
> which, independently of the "A player CAN create" clause, meant that an
> incorrectly-quoted proposal /was/ Platonically a proposal anyway (with
> no author) because it fit the "A proposal is" definition.
>

In that case, the first distribution, and thus the first ID
assignment, failed. The second ID assignment also failed due to a
wording mistake on my part. I wrote:

>This message serves to initiate, and assign an ID number to, the
>decision of whether to adopt the following proposal:

This would mean assigning an ID number to the decision, when it should
be the proposal having an ID.
However, a decision can be initiated without an ID number being
assigned. What is required is that I publish the proposal with the
clear intent of distributing it, which initiates a decision. This
decision is in turn only initiated if a person authorized to initiate
it posts a notice saying so. That notice must include all essential
parameters.

First question is: is the promotor authorized to post such a notice?
Game custom assumes e is, but the language is confusing. The decision
must be initiated by the posting of a notice, but it also platonically
is initiated by the distribution of the proposal. One not unreasonable
interpretation is that there is no person who is authorized to
initiate the decision. (This is further confused by the initiation
being called a "means" of removing the proposal from the pool
(=distributing it) which messes up cause and effect a little.
Distribution causes initiation and removal, but the initiation causes
the removal...) The other interpretation, the one game custom implies,
is that the distribution is the notice in question.

Second question: if the promotor can initiate decisions, did I at any
point succeed in doing so with P6546/8? The clear intent to distribute
was only present in the first try, which specified the wrong author.
The second try did publish it with a clear intent to initiate the
decision, but failed in any case to specify the valid options, so
nothing happened. The third try did publish the proposal (in a quote)
without clearly intending it to be distributed, so ID assignment 6548
failed too. I then went on to initiate the decision on proposal 6548,
which didn't exist, so in the end I probably haven't done anything.

The only possibility is if you read my third try as "I hereby initiate
the decision on whether to adopt [and at the same time I publish (it's
in the quote) and distribute] [the proposal I just referred to as]
proposal 6548", maybe even with an implicit ID assignment in there.

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

Caller's Evidence:

(the messages purporting to initiate the decision in question):

The first distribution:

2009/10/27 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> This distribution of proposals and the subsequent assigning of ID
> numbers initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt prosals
> 6542-6547. The eligible voters for these proposals are the active
> players as of this message, and the vote collector is the Assessor.
> The valid options on each decision are FOR and AGAINST; as with all
> Agoran Decisions, PRESENT is also an option. These decisions are all
> ordinary to begin.
>
> NUM   II  AI   SUBMITTER         CHAMBER  TITLE
> 6542  1   1.7  Murphy            Green    High-rank appeals prefer
> high-rank panels
> 6543  1   1.7  Yally             Green    Punish Walker
> 6544  1   1.7  c.                Green    Punish Yally
> 6545  1   3.0  coppro            Red      Because E's Worth It
> 6546  1   1.0  coppro            Green    Pragmatize strict ordering
> 6547  1   2.0  coppro            Red      Punishment Shmunishment
>
> Proposals:
>
> (...)
>
> ID: 6546
> Title: Pragmatize strict ordering
> Author: coppro
> AI: 1.0
> II: 1
> Chamber: Green
> Distributable: Yes
>
> Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) by replacing:
>
>     (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
>         number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
>         digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to
>         an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is
>         defined by the rules as strictly ordered) greater than any
>         orderly ID number so assigned.  The player SHOULD select the
>         smallest number possible.
>
> with:
>
>     (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
>         number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
>         digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to
>         an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is
>         defined by the rules as strictly ordered) ILLEGAL unless the
>         number is greater than any orderly ID number so assigned.
>         The player SHOULD select the smallest number possible.
>

The second (quoted) and third attempts at initiation:

2009/10/27 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> 2009/10/27 Jonatan Kilhamn :
>> This message serves to initiate, and assign an ID number to, the
>> decision of whether to adopt the following proposal:
>>
>> NUM   II  AI   SUBMITTER         CHAMBER  TITLE
>> 6546  1   1.0  c.                 Green    Pragmatize strict ordering
>>
>> The eligible voters are the active players as of this message.
>>
>> Proposal:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Title: Pragmatize strict ordering
>> Author: c.
>> AI: 1.0
>> II: 1
>> Chamber: Green
>> Distributable: Yes
>>
>> Amend Rule 2161 (ID Numbers) by replacing:
>>
>>    (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
>>        number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
>>        digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to
>>        an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is
>>        defined by the rules as strictly ordered) greater than any
>>        orderly ID number so assigned.  The player SHOULD select the
>>        smallest number possible.
>>
>> with:
>>
>>    (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural
>>        number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14
>>        digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to
>>        an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is
>>        defined by the rules as strictly ordered) ILLEGAL unless the
>>        number is greater than any orderly ID number so assigned.
>>        The player SHOULD select the smallest number possible.
>>
> The proposal is now correctly distributed, but the initiation of the
> decision and the ID number assignment failed for various reasons.
>
> I assign the quoted proposal the ID number 6548.
> I hereby initiate the ordinary decision of whether do adopt Proposal
> 6548; the eligible voters are the active players as of this message;
> the options are FOR and AGAINST (a ballot cast for PRESENT is also
> valid); the vote collector is the Assessor; any other essential
> parameters can be found in the quoted text.
>

Me pointing out that the second initiation didn't include all
necessary information:

2009/10/27 Jonatan Kilhamn :
> 2009/10/27 Sean Hunt :
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
>>  wrote:
>>> This message serves to initiate, and assign an ID number to, the
>>> decision of whether to adopt the following proposal:
>>>
>>> NUM   II  AI   SUBMITTER         CHAMBER  TITLE
>>> 6546  1   1.0  c.                 Green    Pragmatize strict ordering
>>
>> This ID number assignment fails.
>>
>> -coppro
>>
> The whole thing failed, I didn't include the options or the identity
> of the vote collector.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

R106/24 reads:
      A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a
      Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the
      clear intent of distributing it.  When a proposal is
      distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.  The
      distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of
      whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.

This clearly states that an authorized person publishing a proposal
with the clear intent of distributing it does in fact distribute it,
whether or not e publishes any other information (e.g. information
required by the R107 decision initiation process).  And it also clearly
and directly states that said distribution acts to initiate the Agoran
decision.  Moreover, it fails to authorize the promotor to initiate the
decision, as required by R107.  Rather, it states right out that the
distribution notice initiates the decision.

Now, R107/11 is actually divided into two parts. First, a method for
initiation (describing what an initiating notice must contain) which
ends with a sentence similar/parallel to that of R106, saying that "The
publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the
decision."

Here, in context, "initiating a decision" in R106 MUST be treated to
be the same as "initiating the voting period for a decision" in that
the voting period is the only thing that R106 says is "described
elsewhere" that can in fact be "initiated".  It's nonsensical to say
that a process (Distribution) initiates the publication of a further
notice!  This is where I disagree with the caller, who states that
initiating a decision somehow "initiates" a requirement for the
publication of a R107 Notice.

So there are actually two orthogonal methods of initiating [the voting
period for] a decision, by R106 distributing a proposal, or by publishing
a valid R107 notice of initiation.  The methods do not conflict in spite
of the fact that they require different levels of information (and if
they did conflict, the R106 method would have numerical precedence).

In the current case, the second attempt did not have full R107-notice
details (available options etc.), but it DID have R106 intent to
distribute, and the Promotor was authorized to do this by R1607/28, which
distributed the proposal.

TRUE.

I should note that this interpretation is the best of a set of poor
options.  It's not for the good of the game to weaken the information
needed to initiate decisions (and it may mean past distributions
which were thought to fail actually succeeded).  But note that the
alternate interpretation, that the distribution "initiates" the need
for a R107 notice, does indeed break the system as the caller describes,
as the promoter is not in fact authorized to publish said R107 Notice.
This interpretation runs against R1698/1 as it would indeed be
impossible to adopt proposals, and we'd have to recalculate everything
back to where the rules came to have this form!

The best fix for this is to amend R106 to say something like this:
Replace:
      A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a
      Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the
      clear intent of distributing it.  When a proposal is
      distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.  The
      distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of
      whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.  Removing
      a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an
      Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.
with:
      A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a
      Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by initiating the Agoran
      decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.
      When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal
      Pool.  Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than
      initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.

This fix authorizes the promotor to initiate the decision directly, and
makes the initiation the means of distribution, rather than distribution
the means of initiation, thus putting in the R107 notice requirements.

An orthogonal note.  From R1607/28:
      Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
      Promotor.
means that technically, a proposal is not defined as having an ID number
until *after* it is distributed.   Fortunately, by R107/11, it is not
necessary for the ID number to be "officially" assigned to perform
the distribution (otherwise distribution would be impossible), it is
enough to say (in the usual order of things) that the indicated number,
while not being an ID number, serves to clearly identifies the matter
to be decided the instant before it is distributed (and thus allows
the decision to be initiated) and then (the instant after distribution)
the ID number is officially assigned to the proposal in question.
This convenience in ordering is no more difficult to accept then, for
example, allowing players to assign AI or perform actions on "the
following proposal" when they submit a proposal.

Therefore, the success/failure of assigning ID numbers is to be
considered subsequent to whether the proposal was distributed; if the
proposal was not distributed, no ID number could be assigned; if the
proposal was distributed, the ID number may or may not be assigned
(or in fact could be assigned in a later message).

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