Index ← 2821a CFJ 2821 2822a → text
==============================  CFJ 2821  ==============================

    As a result of the above win announcement, a person other than comex
    satisfied the Winning Condition of Legislation.


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2821a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          27 Jul 2010 17:52:11 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         29 Jul 2010 02:16:11 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     29 Jul 2010 16:53:54 GMT
Appealed by scshunt:                    29 Jul 2010 19:24:30 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        29 Jul 2010 19:54:26 GMT
Appealed by Yally:                      29 Jul 2010 20:03:17 GMT
Appeal 2821a:                           29 Jul 2010 20:03:17 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     12 Aug 2010 20:56:46 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

This is a win announcement: A proposal (6740) awarding a win to comex
has been adopted.

(What?  It's true, even if the proposal also awarded a win to other players.)


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Proposal 6740 is a "proposal awarding a win to one or more
persons", so "all those persons" satisfy the Winning Condition.

It's less obvious, though, whether the announcement was of the form that
rule 2188 requires, but I think it probably was.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Would "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted"
suffice?  If not (as I read it), "awarding a win to one or more
persons" is part of the format of the announcement, so whatever is
specified in place of 'one or more persons' (as long as the
announcement is actually a win announcement, i.e., correct) is used
for the following text.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, Rule 2186/8 reads in part:

      A win announcement is a factually correct announcement
      explicitly labeled as a win announcement and/or clearly stating
      that one or more persons win the game.

As the "or" indicates, so as long as a factually correct announcement
clearly states that one or more persons win the game, it is a win
announcement, even if not labeled "win announcement".  Some of the
gratuitous arguments for these cases show that we have not been paying
attention to the "or", but it's fairly clear and hard to interpret

Next, Rule 2188/1 reads:

      Upon a win announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or
      more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
      Winning Condition of Legislation.

      Cleanup procedure: The condition cannot be satisfied again for
      the same proposal.

Taking these together, the actual Win Announcement for Legislation is
the first (correct) announcement that a proposal with the proper
awarding text has been adopted, as the text of a proposal satisfying
R2188 would also satisfy text for a win announcement as per R2186[1].
The announcement that does so[2], of course, is the Assessor's first
clear and correct voting report on the proposal in question[3].

Therefore, the presupposition of this CFJ, that the quoted text is a
win announcement[4] is not correct.  FALSE.


One question that the Callers of the CFJs *attempted* to get at: "does a
win announcement have to list all winners, either to be a win
announcement or to cause unlisted players to win?"  The question is
whether "clearly stating that one or more persons win the game" in R2186
is satisfied by stating literally "one or more persons has won the game"
or whether, to be considered "clear", the announcement must explicitly
list the persons in question.  We can't answer this generally for all
types of wins.  For example, Solitude (R2245) is platonic (perhaps
accidentally), not requiring a win announcement at all.  For a Win by
Legislation, R2188 is clear that the announcement is question is that a
"proposal has been adopted", not that a particular person has won.
Determining the identity of the winners is therefore delegated to the
proposal text.  So for a Win by Legislation, the win announcement must
still state correctly that "one or more persons" won to literally
satisfy R2186.  Then, to be sufficiently clear, it is both necessary and
sufficient for the announcement to explicitly reference the proposal,
and the proposal must specify the set clearly (CFJ 2808 found that the
proposal in question did, provided the set of winners is non-empty).
If, optionally, the win announcement, *in addition to referencing the
proposal*, correctly identified one or more of the winners (an incorrect
identification would make the win announcement factually incorrect), the
announcement would still cause "all those persons" specified in the
proposal (not just those listed in the win announcement) to win.

This is all assuming there are actually a nonempty set of winners
defined by the proposal in question (must be nonempty to satisfy "one or
more").  CFJ 2808 opined on wording of the proposal but took for granted
that the set of winners was non-empty and (more importantly) that at
least one member of the set was reasonably determinable; this is assumed
here as well, but not further explored.

A possible counterargument is timing: that the Assessor's announcement
can't simultaneously announce the adoption of the proposal and be a win
announcement, as the win "hasn't happened" at the time of the
announcement.  In that case, the first clear and correct statement of
winning was the CotC's announcement of the results of CFJ 2808.  Neither
the CFJ call nor the judge's delivery of judgement published the full
facts of the win in one place, but the CotC's announcement of the case
results clearly announced that it was TRUE that one or more players won
due to the proposal in question, meeting both R2186 and R2188 criteria.
This reasoning would still result in a judgement of FALSE, albeit with
an error rating for the timing of the actual win announcement and
different implications for past and future win timing.

Yes, this "or" is something that we haven't noticed before, which may
affect the timing of past Legislation Wins, in particular the whole
Succession List reordering that happened with the Chamber wins a couple
months ago.


Appellant scshunt's Arguments:

I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment, as it implies that
the win announcement is in fact the adoption of the proposal, but does
not fully address whether a posting the text of a proposal purporting to
award a win is the same as announcing that one or more players win the
game, which is required to satisfy Rule 2186.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

The following announcements all work to be a win announcement for
ALL persons specified as winning in Proposal 6470:

"One or more persons has won due to Proposal 6740 being adopted".

"comex has won (see Proposal 6470)" [provided comex is in the set,
correctly identifying one of the "one or more persons" directly
communicates that one or more persons has won].

"Proposal 6470 has been adopted due to these votes.
  Text of Proposal 6470:
  [Reasonably-specified nonempty set of persons] has won."

These don't work:
"Proposal 6740 has been adopted" (no mention of one or more persons winning)
"One or more persons has won" (no mention of proposal)
"comex has won" (no mention of proposal)

This is a borderline case:
"Win announcement: proposal 6470 has been adopted."
Because it might be implicit in the term "win announcement" that one
or more persons has won.  But I'd personally say it doesn't satisfy the test
of "clearly".


Appellant omd's Arguments:

I support coppro's appeal, as the judge hasn't fully explained why,
out of two competing sets of persons, both of which are required to be
present by the rules-- the one in the win announcement, and the one in
the proposal-- the latter is used as the referent of "all those
persons".  For example, consider the following hypothetical rule text:

      Upon an announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or
      more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
      Winning Condition of Legislation.

This is the same as R2188, but with "a win announcement" changed to
"an announcement".  Clearly, under this version, there is the
potential for anyone to win the game by falsely claiming a proposal
awarding em a win has been adopted-- there is no actual proposal to
provide a set of "all those persons", but the text is only concerned
with announcement.

Why does adding the requirement that the announcement is correct
change the referent?


Judge G.'s Arguments:

The win announcement rule (r2186) says, a bit awkwardly, that a win
announcement must consist of two parts.  The first is a factually
correct statement [hereafter the "content" of the win announcement].
The second is a label identifying the announcement as a win
announcement.  That label can either be (a) the text "win announcement"
or (b) a statement that one or more persons won the game.  The actual
requirements of content that set up various win conditions are
described in individual win conditions.

The problem here is that the label of type (b) is identical in
information to the required content of many announcement-triggered
winning conditions.  So it's possible to just state "these persons won
the game due to X" and take the common-sense approach that the
statement serves as both label and content that one or more persons
won the game.  It's also possible to attempt to confound label and
content to set up contradictions, which is what we have to tease apart
for this win by legislation.

First: the relatively "easy" issue, raised by Appellant comex.

All the text in R2188 refers to the content of the win announcement,
not the label, and it's clear that the required content is the fact of
the Proposal's adoption.  The "all those" reference is a reasonably
clear reference to the "one or more persons" earlier in the sentence,
which is the "persons" that the proposal awards.  If we parse this rule
with parentheses it works like this:
    Upon a win announcement that a [proposal awarding a win to one or
    more persons] has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
    Winning Condition of Legislation.
so that "all those persons" refers to all the persons in the proposal.
This is clearly an intended and reasonable reading.  On the other hand,
comex would have us read it like this:
    Upon a [win announcement] that a proposal awarding [a win to one or
    more persons] has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the
    Winning Condition of Legislation.
attempting to link up the "win announcement" and "one or more persons" to
"all those persons in the win announcement but skipping the part about
the proposal.  This latter grouping is just not a strong or reasonable

Therefore an attempted win announcement creates a winning condition for
the full set of persons named as winners in the proposal (even if only
a subset of them are named as the "one or more"), or for none of them
(if the win announcement as a whole is incorrect or otherwise invalid),
but never for a subset of them, and never for anyone outside the set.

Second: I myself raised the issue of whether a win announcement could
be self-affirming, that is, if it could simultaneously award a win and
be a true statement that someone wins.  After some of the threads in
discussion that all don't have an issue with self-affirming-ness, I'll
say that the self-affirming works fine.

Third:  coppro raised the issue about whether the language "purports"
is an issue.  In the Agoran world of "doing by announcement", all an
entity can "truly" do is claim, state, purport, announce, or otherwise
say that e performs an action, then the rules determine if e actually
does so.  While "purport" has some cultural baggage (e.g. has the tone
of a doubted accusation) I find that it is not a substantial difference
in meaning when an entity is claiming to act by announcement/body of
text.  Therefore, a proposal or person saying "I announce that I do X,
I claim that I do X, I purport that I do X" is all the same in terms
of effect, and the same as the passive version "by this [statement/
proposal/etc], X is hereby done."  And a Rule stating "when a proposal
purports X" is also triggered when a proposal "says" X, "claims" X
or otherwise announces X.  So a proposal can state any of these things
and it is purporting to do X, thus triggering R2188, and this issue has
no further effect on the current case.

Finally, when the Assessor correctly announced:
  The following proposals were adopted [...]
  Proposal text:  [player set Y] won the game.

did this constitute a win announcement?  Here, the statement that one or
more persons won the game (e.g. the label) is buried deep within the
proposal text (the content) and surrounded by other proposal texts and
separated from the note that the proposal was adopted.  In a more direct
situation, (e.g. if someone isolates the proposal and announces it) then
the content might serve as the label.  However, here I reverse my
previous stance, and say that the context was in fact too separate,
there wasn't a well-contained or well-labeled win announcement there.

So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement.  Where does
that leave us?  According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence.
Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think
that e was?  By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't):
  Award a win to player who did not acknowledge the existence of this
  proposal in a public or discussion forum after the time it was
  submitted and before the time it was adopted.
Therefore, the alleged win announcement that "a proposal awarding a win
to comex [among others] has been adopted" contains a false statement,
so is neither true nor accurate, so is not a win announcement.

Therefore, as the quoted statement was not a win announcement, it did
not award a win to anyone.  Both 2821 and 2822 are FALSE.