Index ← 2878 CFJ 2879 2880 → text
==============================  CFJ 2879  ==============================

    ehird can make emself the holder of IADoP by announcement


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       07 Oct 2010 13:17:50 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         17 Oct 2010 20:42:28 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.:                      18 Oct 2010 04:26:08 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Arguments/evidence coming soon.


Caller's Evidence:

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> On 7 October 2010 13:46, Elliott Hird 
> > If I'm not active, I become active. I intend, with 1 support, and
> > conditional on this condition not being met, to become inactive.
> With 1 support (from ais523), and conditional on the above condition, I do


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

First, the statement of the CFJ is merely designed to get this into
paradox form; as IADoP is vacant (Wooble resigned recently), ehird can
assume it if, and only if, e's active at the time. (Yes, this is a
paradox attempt, just to clear up any doubt about that...)

This scam exploits a bug in rule 1728, quoted here:
      A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to
      perform an action by a set of one or more of the following
      methods (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

       1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no
          greater than 8.
       2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.
       3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
          with a minimum of 1.
       4) With Notice.

      thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all
      of the following are true:

       a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
          action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
          method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at most
          fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
          objections or notice) at least four days earlier.

       b) At least one of the following is true:

            1) The performer is the initiator.

            2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due
               to holding a rule-defined position now held by the

            3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
               action depends on support, the performer has supported
               the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance
               does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing

       c) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
          other rules.

       d) If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was
          given in the announcement of intent to perform the action,
          all those conditions are met.

      The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
      depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on

Unlike most other parts of the rules that care about whether something
is "unambiguously" true, etc., this simply cares about whether a
condition is "met", and thus, about the exact truth value of the
statement. (And unlike CFJs, it doesn't have an UNDECIDABLE state or
anything of that nature.) It's clear that the other parts of the
dependent action are met; it's POSSIBLE for an active player to become
inactive with 1 support (rule 2288: "If a person CAN perform an action
by announcement, e CAN perform it with N support, [...], where N is a
number appropriate for that form of dependent action."), intent was
given within the last 14 days, the support was given (I supported) thus
making Agora satisfied, and the initiator was the (attempted) performer;
the only sticking point here is 1728d, which requires any set of
conditions given in the intent to be met. The condition in question,
"conditional on this condition not being met", is clearly paradoxical;
yet its truth is what governs the success or failure of ehird's attempt
to become inactive. And with no clause requiring clarity, unambiguity,
or really anything else to disassociate the success of the action from
the truth of the condition, the only conclusion is that it's undecidable
whether or not alise managed to become inactive; unlike, say,
registration where there's a requirement to be reasonably unambiguous,
there's no rule that specifies a default for paradoxical actions here.
Thus, I recommend a judgement of UNDECIDABLE.


Gratuitous Evidence by ais523:

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:17 +0100, ais523 wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:07 +0100, Elliott Hird wrote:
> > On 7 October 2010 13:46, Elliott Hird 
> > > If I'm not active, I become active. I intend, with 1 support, and
> > > conditional on this condition not being met, to become inactive.
> >
> > With 1 support (from ais523), and conditional on the above condition, I do
> I submit an inquiry CFJ on the statement "ehird can make emself the
> holder of IADoP by announcement". Arguments/evidence coming soon.

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 13:56 +0100, ais523 wrote (in reference to the
13:46 +0100 message by ehird):
> I support.


Gratuitous Arguments by Bucky:

The caller's argument assumes that the phrase 'this conditional' is
self-referential; however, it has a natural antecedent in "with 1 support".  I
argue that ehrid failed to become inactive because he did so conditionally on
not receiving support for that action and subsequently received support for


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

1728d) defines what conditions means in this
context. 1728c) would be redundant if your meaning was correct, and that
would also not match up with what the typical interpretation of
dependent actions is (although that isn't to say you're necessarily


Judge G.'s Arguments:

When a conditional is paradoxical, it does not, in fact, have a truth
value.  The conditional itself is undecidable, that is a fact.

However, that doesn't mean that that truth value cascades to other
dependencies on the truth value.

You can say that the condition is NOT met, and NOT not met, where the
capitalized NOT is evaluated one level up (e.g. a meta-evaluation) so
that "NOT not" does not cancel out into "met".  This is consistent
with many philosophies of "resolving" self-paradox, as being neither true
nor false, and in retrospect I'm very surprised it has never been used
as an argument here.  After all, there is nothing in the rules that
forbids using a meta-evaluation on a conditional of this nature, or
using the NOT met in the particular rule as a meta-evaluation and
it certainly falls within both common sense and the spirit of the game.

Since the condition is NOT met (and it doesn't matter if it's also
NOT not met) the dependent action fails.  ehird remained active and
CAN (or COULD) become IADoP by announcement.  TRUE.