============================== CFJ 3379 ==============================
I transferred 1 Yak to omd within 1 second of 17 Jul 2013 15:50:42
Called by G.: 17 Jul 2013 16:25:52 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 23 Jul 2013 17:08:28 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 26 Jul 2013 21:12:42 GMT
Previous precedents [*] hold that a single message sent to multiple
public fora is in fact only one message. The only common time for this
is the instant of initial sending. If, however, the timing is set by
each forum's receiving time, there is a conflict with this precedent,
as it makes 2 messages which differ in the legal time of effect.
The past precedents on message timing are frankly a muddle and possible
at odds with actual practice. This set of CFJs is meant to call
attention to a side-effect of setting the timing on the server side.
See evidence for timing evidence, the date chosen for the CFJ was the
"traditional" time used (G.'s time of sending).
[My personal belief is that the best overall way out of the muddle, in
the absence of new legislation, is to use the sending time, UNLESS there
is sufficient difference between the send and list receive times to
suggest that something was hung up on the sender's side or that the
sending time was set wrongly. Yes this "sufficient difference" is
squishy, but it still leaves things generally under the sender's control
which is how we've generally played].
[*] This is from my memory of the precedents. Can do the research on
exact case numbers later depending on if there's discussion on this or
From headers, a single message from G.'s known email account, with
the phrase 'I transfer 1 Yak from myself to omd':
1. was sent (left sender control) on 17 Jul 2013 15:50:42 +0000
2. was received by agora-business on 17 Jul 2013 15:54:22 +0000
3. was received by listserver.tue.nl on 17 Jul 2013 15:54:23 +0000
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I judge CFJ 3378 TRUE, CFJ 3379 FALSE.
The recent precedents have all been that a message becomes effective
when it becomes available to its recipients (as opposed to the older
TDoC game custom), and there's an older precedent that sending a message
via multiple fora is still only one message (unless the headers indicate
that it's intended to be multiple messages); I remember when I tried to
scam via sending an intent to both backup lists in the hope that people
wouldn't object to both intents, but that doesn't work.
As such, in the case of a message sent via multiple fora, whichever
forum relays the message first is the one whose timestamp should be
respected; at that point, players are aware of the message, and the
backup copy becomes redundant. (This is especially important given, say,
the times in the past where the agora-* lists have been broken, the
backup lists have been broken, and players have sent to both lists.)
See also CFJ 2058 (read the judgement; the verdict is misleading because
the statement was badly worded).
Finally, CFJ 866 seems to be relevant background reading too (and also
supports this verdict), and may be responsible for the TDoC confusion
(in that it holds that the /recipient's/ TDoC is what matters, not
the /sender's/ TDoC).
This leaves open the issue of an email that's relayed in a timely manner
to some recipients but not all of them, but that isn't at issue in this