Index ← 2925 CFJ 2926a 2926 → text
============================  Appeal 2926a  ============================

Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               Murphy
Decision:                               AFFIRM

Panelist:                               Yally
Decision:                               AFFIRM



Appeal initiated:                       20 Dec 2010 03:46:23 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              20 Dec 2010 06:59:15 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist):          20 Dec 2010 06:59:15 GMT
Assigned to Yally (panelist):           20 Dec 2010 06:59:15 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM:                     20 Dec 2010 18:16:28 GMT
Yally moves to AFFIRM:                  23 Dec 2010 23:10:15 GMT
Murphy moves to AFFIRM:                 02 Jan 2011 18:51:04 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM):                06 Jan 2011 00:00:00 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 22:46 -0500, omd wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Sean Hunt 
> > This, unfortunately for em, does not work, as there is no
> > gamestate by which Rule 1551 would actually make that change. Agoran
> > precedence has long held that no entity can set up a delayed effect of
> > form, so there is no reason that ratification would suddenly be able to do
> > so.
> There is no delayed effect here.  The document is a sort of prophecy,
> which states that something will happen in its future.  Looking at it
> from the present, we can say the prophecy is true if Rule 1551 does
> actually make the specified change at the time of ratification, false
> if ratification has occurred but the change has not, and still
> undetermined otherwise.  If the document does ever get ratified, Rule
> 1551 will change the gamestate so that it is true, but in the mean
> time, it is neither true nor false.
This argument is mostly correct, and I think coppro erred in this. It
doesn't mean you're innocent, though. You're making statements about
ratification which are only correct under the old, broken version of the
ratification rule; and with multiple fix proposals pending, including
one you authored, making a general statement about the future, one which
relies on a particular current wording of the rule to still hold if a
particular statement is ever ratified in the future, is just logically

> > I do not believe the reasonability defense applies here as there is no
> > Agoran precedence
> precedent, but I think the above argument is reasonable even if the
> court ends up disagreeing with it (although it's moot because the
> document won't be ratified).
> > Accordingly, I judge this case GUILTY.
> Note also that, whether or not it was actually illegal, I have already
> been punished for this particular action: I NoVed myself for violating
> Rule 2215 (Truthiness), and closed the NoV.

Making incorrect statements is one issue. Attempting to ratify them is
another. I don't think they're the same crime, and indeed, you could be
punished for both.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 22:52 -0500, Sean Hunt wrote:
> The problem is that there is no gamestate that, at the time of
> publication, would cause Rule 1551 to mutate a rule a week later. Thus
> the ratification fails.

There doesn't have to be one, because ratification is currently broken;
it looks for a present gamestate that makes a past statement true. This
is generally impossible, but omd specifically crafted eir statement so
that it would be possible. On the other hand, the statement is still
incorrect, as it doesn't allow for the case of the statement in question
being ratified some time after the ratification rules are amended.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

If one person had published a knowingly incorrect document and claimed
it was true, and a different player had attempted to ratify it (also
knowing it was incorrect), and the document itself was a statement about
the effects of the Agoran ruleset, which (if either) would violate
R2215? Which (if either) would violate R2202? To me, the only sane
answer is that the first would violate R2215 but not R2202, and the
second would violate R2202 but not R2215, because the two illegal
actions are entirely separate. Presumably you have something else in


Panelist G.'s Arguments:

I think both the judge's opinion and the gratuitous arguments provided
by ais523 in response to the defendant's appeal are generally reasonable.

It's possible that this invalidates the self-applied "punishment" of the
NoV, or that closing an NoV without judicial review (by choice) is a
plea agreement with oneself (not Agora!) and thus not to be considered a


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I don't (especially since some of ais523's gratuitous arguments
contradicted the judge's opinion)...

ais523's opinion and mine differ mainly in that e thinks the statement
in the document is subjunctive (if X, it is necessarily true that Y),
while I think the document is indicative (it is not actually true that
X and not Y).

I always intended for it to be indicative, because the subjunctive
version of the statement would be somewhat nonsensical / impossible,
and might not work as expected to ratify.  I'm not entirely sure such
a statement can actually be expressed in English... but I'm also not
sure that it can't, as the analogy of a prophecy seems reasonable.  In
any case, the wording of the document is awkward specifically because
I wanted to avoid a subjunctive interpretation.

Again, the test for GUILTY is not that the arguments against me are
reasonable (sufficiently more reasonable than mine to be considered
correct), but that my arguments are inherently unreasonable.


Panelist Yally's Arguments:

I agree with ais523's arguments on the case regarding culpability
entirely. Since omd didn't appeal the question on sentencing and
generally seemed to have no disputes concerning it, and, in my
opinion, ais523's decision on sentencing is fair and appropriate, I
opine AFFIRM.


Panelist Murphy's Arguments:

[CotC: unofficial opinion]

omd has admitted that the statement would be false if certain events
occurred, e.g. if the document was ratified after Proposal 6938
passed.  Game custom is that such statements are treated as incorrect,
e.g. some CFJs about hypothetical situations have basically been judged
"true only if X, so not always true, so FALSE".

Examining the points that Rule 1504 requires to be found true beyond
reasonable doubt:

  (a) omd violated the rules as described.  Yes, per game custom as
      noted above.

  (b) Within past 90 days.  Not disputed.

  (c) No double jeopardy.  Disputed elsewhere (omd dinged emself for
      a small Rest penalty for some aspect of the situation), but
      generally rejected as not targeting substantially the same
      actoin as this case.

  (d) omd could not have reasonably believed that eir action was
      legal.  Yes, e's been around long enough that e should have known
      about the relevant game custom.

  (e) omd could have reasonably avoided etc..  Yes, e could have
      acknowledged the relevant game custom when announcing intent,
      which would have triggered Rule 2202's "unless" and made eir
      action unambiguously legal.