============================== CFJ 3041 ==============================
Pavitra is a player.
Called by Pavitra: 21 Jun 2011 01:47:35 GMT
Assigned to omd: 03 Jul 2011 17:37:07 GMT
omd recused: 24 Jul 2011 17:55:13 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 24 Jul 2011 18:15:19 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 08 Aug 2011 15:36:42 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Machiavelli:
08 Aug 2011 16:08:52 GMT
Reconsideration requested by ehird: 08 Aug 2011 16:27:57 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Walker: 08 Aug 2011 19:19:10 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 08 Aug 2011 19:19:10 GMT
Murphy recused: 14 Aug 2011 17:31:53 GMT
Assigned to Yally: 14 Aug 2011 17:41:50 GMT
Yally recused: 25 Aug 2011 00:58:46 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli: 10 Sep 2011 18:50:10 GMT
Machiavelli recused: 15 Sep 2011 11:52:18 GMT
Assigned to woggle: 16 Sep 2011 15:02:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle: 19 Sep 2011 03:58:42 GMT
On 06/20/2011 08:43 PM, Pavitra wrote:
> On 06/20/2011 08:41 PM, Pavitra wrote:
>> I hereby take the action described in the shortest document that has the
>> following SHA512 sum:
>> I CFJ: Pavitra is a player. (Arguments and evidence will be provided
> The text [omitted] has the indicated SHA512 sum.
Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:
First, I wish to argue that there is a distinction between publication
of information and the taking of actions-by-announcement. What I have
done would certainly not be sufficient to discharge an obligation to
keep anyone informed, such as the publication of an officer's report.
However, for the purposes of speech acts, this attempt has several
highly desirable qualities, perhaps most importantly nonrepudiation.
After message P alone, it would have been obvious to an observer that I
had attempted to take an action, and furthermore it would have been
ineffective-in-practice for me to try to change my mind afterward about
the content of that action, or to deny that the attempt had taken place.
Back on the first hand, I could have refrained from disclosing the
content of the document in question, and while it probably would have
been possible to discover this (the document does not remotely meet the
usual cryptographic standards of unguessability) it would almost
certainly be outside the Agoran standard of reasonable effort to do so.
In particular, such disclosure had not happened at the time of message P
and hence CFJ 3040, and had occurred only to a non-public forum
at the time of message R and hence CFJ 3041.
It is my belief that inclusion-by-reference, especially under these
strict conditions of nonrepudiation, in general ought to work for
actions by announcement. If I were to try the same thing now that the
text corresponding to the hash has been published, I believe that I
would thereby register.
CFJ 3040 is, in my opinion, somewhat more straightforward; on the
surface, it asks only whether nonrepudiation with the danger of
nondisclosure is sufficient to include a message. There is one
complication to this, which I shall discuss shortly.
CFJ 3041 is more complex (assuming CFJ 3040 is FALSE), as
it depends both on whether disclosure via a discussion forum is
sufficient, and on whether later disclosure can cause later action.
This brings us to the complication on CFJ 3040, which is whether
later disclosure can cause _retroactive_ action. Did message P become
effective as of its timestamp upon the disclosure in message Q?
I would strongly argue against this interpretation, as in general it
would be bad for the game if the effects of a public message depended in
part on information not necessarily yet decided (whether message Q would
be sent) at the time of its publication.
As I type this up, I am coming to realize that my whole premise is on
rather shakier ground than I initially realized, and perhaps I could
have produced a more interesting case had I written up my arguments in
advance. Vivo et disco.
Gratuitous Evidence by Pavitra:
the two messages I recently sent to a-b (hereafter messages P and R),
and the one message I recently sent to a-d (message Q). In particular,
the chronological order of those messages was P->Q->R, and message Q
disclosed (and I hereby publish) the fact that "I register." has the
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
It's possible (if unlikely) that a shorter document has the same sum.
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
There are many, many documents with that sum, all tied in length. They
will all have the same text, but no document is unique. I suspect,
however, that that is not a significant argument here.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
Pretty much the first thing I thought of upon seeing the message was to take
the SHA-512 hash of "I register." (Unfortunately, I read on before actually
doing so.) Arguably, it is not unreasonable effort to reverse a hash when it's
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
I accept ais523's gratuitous arguments and judge TRUE.
Request for reconsideration by :
in my mind, brute-forcing a SHA-512 hash of any
size is an unreasonable effort to undertake in order to understand a
message. The responsibility for making a message easy to understand
falls chiefly on the writer, not the reader. While the writer could
have trivially made the message easier to understand, the reader would
have to know what a SHA-512 hash is and how to calculate one, and
either have enough cleverness to guess the correct string in a few
tries, or know how to write or find a computer program that
brute-forces the hash. It is unreasonable for the author of a message
to avoid an insignificant burden by expecting readers to bear a
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Googling "SHA 512" turns up
within the first page of hits. Furthermore, not only was Pavitra's
action relatively easy to guess, but eir exact text was relatively
easy to guess due to its straightforwardness and brevity (contrast
the hypothetical situation where e hashed e.g. "so hey I wanna become
one o' them player thingies").
Gratuitous Arguments by Pavitra:
Judge Murphy ruled TRUE on the grounds that ais523 claimed to have
correctly guessed the text of the hashed message in advance. Even if the
message could have been sufficiently obvious to at least one player, it
does not follow that the message was generally comprehensible to the
players at large. Suppose, for comparison, that I had chosen a much
longer and more complicated text to hash, and disclosed that text
privately to ais523 beforehand.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
CFJs 2875 and 2972.
Judge woggle's Arguments:
Though it may have been unambiguous, Pavitra's message was certainly did
not "reasonably clearly" indicate eir intent to register. The effort
required to interpret the message goes well beyond "reasonable". While
it is common for some player's to guess that Pavitra was trying to pull
a registration scam, it is not reasonable to expect all players to do so
or to expect a newcomer with access to the Public fora archives to do so
in less than an hour.
Moreover, proving that the "I register." expansion of the SHA512 hash is
the only shortest message is a non-trivial mathematical result, which
Pavitra can probably not prove to a mathematician's satisfaction.
Future disclosure of the message's hash is irrelevant because messages
are traditionally interpreted using the context available at the time
they sent. (Rules may simulate changing that context retroactively (e.g.
ratification), but simple clever wording of messages should not be
enough; enabling such practice would not be in the interest of the
stability of the game.)