Index ← 3307 CFJ 3308 3309 → text
==============================  CFJ 3308  ==============================

    scshunt objects to the Ambassador-at-Large's latest intention
    regarding Psychose Nomic.


Caller:                                 Roujo

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Roujo:                        19 Apr 2013 20:43:34 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     20 Apr 2013 22:24:46 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  25 Apr 2013 23:06:53 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

In the quoted message, scshunt said "I object until more
info is provided.", information which I then provided, satisfying the


Caller's Evidence:

On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Sean Hunt 
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
>  wrote:
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip OmNomNomic's recognition to
>> Neutral. See here for details:
>> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip Psychose Nomic's recognition to
>> Friendly. That's a Nomic I've started a couple of years ago with some
>> friends of mine. May Agora have mercy on its soul.
> I object until more info is provided.


Judge ais523's Arguments:

To start off with, I expand scshunt's statement to a more precise,
equivalent version: "I object. I withdraw that objection when more info
is provided.". This seems to be the only reasonable expansion of the
statement; matters would be more confusing if withdrawing objections
were impossible, but in this case there obvious expansion of the
statement consists of a pair of possible actions, one of which has a
dubious timing rule.

Seen in that light, the original objection worked. But what about the
withdrawal? Rule 2124 defines a mechanism via which dependent actions
can be objected to (which is equivalent to by announcement, although
defined in a more long-winded way). It's a little dubious as to whether
it defines a mechanism for withdrawing dependent actions; game custom
and the surrounding context makes announcement reasonable for that, as
well (especially as one possible reading of the rule, if not the most
natural one, makes it possible to group "publicly" with "posted (and not
withdrawn)" rather than just with "posted". So it makes sense to rule
that the appropriate mechanism for withdrawing an objection is by

As such, an attempt to set up a delayed objection withdrawal merely by
saying that an objection is withdrawn in the future upon meeting
specified conditions is the ISIDTID fallacy; no rule provides that as a
mechanism for withdrawing objections, so it fails. (I note that you
could accomplish something similar via "I object. I promise to withdraw
that objection if more information is provided.", but that has the
crucial distinction that someone would actually have to cash the
promise, and you'd need to give the promise to someone (or the Tree) in
order to make that possible. So there'd be no weird platonic timing
issues involved; the withdrawal would happen when the promise was
cashed, rather than some weird moment of information provision.)

As such, the objection succeeded and the withdrawal failed: TRUE.