Index ← 3379 CFJ 3380 3381 → text
==============================  CFJ 3380  ==============================

    G.'s votes in the recent General Election were submitted before the
    voting period ended.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by ais523:                       16 Jul 2013 20:32:46 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     23 Jul 2013 17:06:10 GMT
Murphy recused:                         05 Aug 2013 13:20:04 GMT
Assigned to lindar:                     05 Aug 2013 13:24:49 GMT
lindar recused:                         27 Aug 2013 18:53:51 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     28 Aug 2013 16:08:15 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 06 Sep 2013 07:45:07 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

More recent precedents (e.g. CFJ 2058) hinge on when the forum actually
distributes the messages, to determine relative timing. It's hard to
determine the moment at which the server actually sends, but comparing
the last timestamp of (which apparently hosts the mailing
lists) seems to make the most sense, as it's going to be closest to the
time at which the messages are sent and probably have a reasonably
consistent delay. That gives "9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 -0000" for the sending
of the initiation, and "16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000" for the sending of
the votes, meaning that the votes are late. (Note that's
clock is wrong, with me receiving both emails "before" the mailing lists
sent them; however, the difference between the times it states is
presumably constant, unless its clock was adjusted in between.) This
seems like the most reasonable claim to me, but then, I'm biased :)

Older precedents use a "technical domain of control" argument. It seems
likely that c-walker has no technical control over Google, making "09
Jul 2013 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)" the appropriate timestamp for the
sending. G.'s timestamp for sending would depend on the details of the
mail setup in the University of Washington (would e have had access to,
say, unplug the mail server before it relayed eir message?) If using the
TDoC test, it's unclear whether G.'s message was in time, and it depends
on both the amount of clock skew on, and which timestamp is
treated as valid.


Caller's Evidence:

Here are the Received: headers from the messages that initiated the
election, and that resolved it (as seen from my Yahoo! account; obviously, the last few hops will be
different for other people, but the hops up to will be the

c-walker's initiation:
Received: from  (HELO ( by with SMTP; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 19:57:48 +0000
Received: (qmail 6529 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ( by
 SMTP; 9 Jul 2013 20:05:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 6505 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2013 20:05:02 -0000
Received: from ( by
 SMTP; 9 Jul 2013 20:05:02 -0000
Received: by with SMTP id e49so3962749eek.6 for
 ; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by with SMTP id
 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from []
 ( []) by with ESMTPSA id p49sm53765911eeu.2.2013.
  (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA
 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 12:57:39 -0700 (PDT)

G.'s votes:
Received: from  (HELO ( by with SMTP; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:00:14 +0000
Received: (qmail 25573 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO ( by with
 SMTP; 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 25550 invoked from network); 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
Received: from ( by
 with SMTP; 16 Jul 2013 20:08:27 -0000
Received: from ( [])
 by (8.14.4+UW11.03/8.14.4+UW13.04) with ESMTP id
 r6GJv0Ek025467 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256
 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:57:01
X-Auth-Received: from (
 []) (authenticated authid=mailadm) by
 (8.14.4+UW11.03/8.14.4+UW13.02) with ESMTP id r6GJv05F015555
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for
 ; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:57:00 -0700
X-Auth-Received: from [] by via HTTP;
 Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:57:00 PDT


Gratuitous Evidence by Walker:

Evidence: a close family member owns shares in Google.


Gratuitous Evidence by Machiavelli:

I own 0.0000000007% of Google.


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

After several test messages, I've discovered that something deep in the bowels
of the University of Washington (e.g. outside of my control) is imposing a
consistent 4-minute delay in my messages, the gap appearing in the jump from
to the listserver.  This 4-minute delay is consistent to agoranomic, the
server, and the monash server, so I assume it's on "my" end, but after the
message leaves my "personal" control - the evidence in the headers shows
clearly that the delay is inserted *after* the message reaches the
smtp server.  Interestingly, this delay *doesn't* appear when I send messages
from university to my gmail or work accounts.  Go figure.

This gap does not appear in any of the other players' headers that I spot
checked.  While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future play.
However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any
interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me at
a severe and consistent disadvantage over other players in controlling the
timing of my public forum posts, and thus violate my R101 right of
participation om the fora relative to other players.

The 4-minute delay is, a priori, not a substantial rights limitation in most
situations.  But in a relative sense (my ability to "participate" relative to
other players), in this EXACT, CONCRETE, AND SPECIFIC INSTANCE, I claim that a
particular interpretation would substantially limit my rights.  The means of
preserving my rights is to select the time I hit the 'send' key as the
appropriate time stamp.

Until it is otherwise legislated, this is the most consistently "fair"
interpretation for everyone with respect to R101.  While having a RANDOM
delay that everyone has to account for may be ok, having a BIASED delay that
favors certain players is not.  It puts me at a constant disadvantage of
having to submit things at least 1-2 minutes earlier than anyone else when
trying to play to a race condition, which is, well, a specific limitation
to my participation in the fora.

Regardless of whatever else it covers, the R101 right of participation was
meant to protect players from any technical capriciousness (intentional or
unintentional) of the email medium.  If it fails to protect in this case, the
R101 participation right truly is meaningless.


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

In CFJ 2901, one of my messages was delayed due to the
list being down and it was reasonable for me to be unaware of this,
but it was held that my right to participation was not violated
because I could have determined the list was down and sent it by other


Judge's Arguments:

I judge CFJ 3380 FALSE.

Rule 478/30 specifies that "actions performed by sending a message" are
performed at the "time date-stamped on that message". Precedent provides
us with two options for determining which date-stamp to use:
a) the date stamp that best represents the message left its author's
technical domain of control (CFJ 1646); or
b) the date stamp that best represents when the message was actually
sent to players via a public forum (CFJ 2058 (explicitly not adopted for
determining whether rules were broken by missing deadlines));

Under interpretation (a) the timestamps appear to be (omitting day,
month, hour):
initiation: 57:40
attempted votes if G. does not control 57:00
attempted votes if G. does control * 08:27 [*]

Now, timestamp [*] has a problem in that the timestamps used by were clearly substantially incorrect. However, a sensible
correction for this issue, taking the next timestamp that appears
"correct" still shows G.'s message as about 3 minutes late.

Under interpretation (b) the timestamps appear to be (omitting day,
month, hour) -- using ais523's observed timestamps:
initiation: 57:48
attempted votes: 00:14
-- using the forum software's timestamps for forwarding:
initiation: 05:03
attempted votes: 08:27

Both interpretation (a) and (b) have a serious issues of verifiability.
It is difficult to determine where a person's technical domain of
control ends. No single player has full on information about when a
message was effectively sent to players.

Interpretation (b) tends to use timestamps from a consistent source,
which I believe is substantially less surprising. It also matches the
game state better with how players observe the game and should make
uncertainty caused by skewed remote clocks less common.

G. argues that interpretation (a) is required by R101's right of
participation of the forum since G. would be less capable of timing eir
own messages. However, interpretation (a) would also just as easily
yield cases where players were _more_ capable of manipulating the timing
of their own messages; for example, if the server just out of the
technical domain of their control was always a few minutes behind in
time. [1] Since players can probably adjust their mail setup to have
only very nominal delays (even though G. did not have the foresight to
do so in this case), I believe interpretation (b) generally does not
leave players at a disadvantage in their right to participate in the
fora by sending messages.

Additionally, the right to participation in the fora includes not only a
sending messages but also receiving them. G's ability to have messages
considered sent before they are generally available must be
counterbalanced with other player's ability to receive messages that are
considered sent.


Judge's Evidence:

Rule 478/30 [excerpt]

      [...] Any action performed by sending a message is performed at
      the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages
      (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
      in the message, unless otherwise specified.

[1] It would be reasonable to disregard such a server's timestamps, but
we would have no way of reliably detecting when to do so.