Index ← 3448 CFJ 3449 3450 → text
==============================  CFJ 3449  ==============================

    I possess the patent title "Head of the Agoran Ceremonial Mint".

========================================================================

Caller:     scshunt
Judge:      G.
Judgement:  FALSE

========================================================================

Called by scshunt:                                  15 Jul 2015 22:58:07
Assigned to aranea:                                 21 Jul 2015 15:55:44
Judged FALSE by aranea:                             28 Jul 2015 12:36:44
Reconsideration requested by scshunt:               28 Jul 2015 12:50:17
Reconsideration requested by omd:                   28 Jul 2015 16:20:27
Reconsideration requested by aranea:                29 Jul 2015 07:59:18
Reconsideration initiated by G.:                    29 Jul 2015 15:36:03
aranea recused:                                     06 Aug 2015 01:45:32
Assigned to Tekneek:                                06 Aug 2015 01:45:32
Tekneek recused:                                    17 Aug 2015 21:58:25
Assigned to G.:                                     17 Aug 2015 21:58:25
Judged FALSE by G.:                                 28 Sep 2015 18:46:55

========================================================================

<1437011890.18328.20.camel@adf.bham.ac.uk>
Exhibit by ais523:

I think you can plausibly argue that the referent of "its" in rule 106
is ambiguous; if it refers to the decision rather than the rule, nothing
is broken.
Alternatively, you're trying to take the minimum of 4 and an undefined
value. I'd have thought the most sensible resolution of this situation
is to calculate the result as 4.

========================================================================


Exhibit by scshunt:

As comex pointed out in the discussion forum, Proposal 7448 was
submitted without an AI and purported to award me that Title, but was
assumed to have failed to do so due to insufficient AI.
If ais523's argument that the "minimum of 4 and its adotion index" is
in fact 4, however, it succeeded.

========================================================================

Judge's Arguments by aranea:

Note: I've had some troubles finding a ruleset from Jun 2013 (when the
resolution of proposal 7448 took place). I believe the relevant rules
cited below existed back then, but I'm not 100% sure.

"its adoption index" in R106 refers to the proposal, not to the
decision, as the other "its" and the "it" in the same sentence also
refer to the proposal. So if a proposal doesn't has an adoption index
of "none", this results in fact in the power of the proposal being set
to the minimum of four and "none".

I agree with ais523's interpretation that the the minimum of four and
none is four; mathematically, this seems to make sense: If we assume
{'none'} = {} and "minimum of a and b := min {a,b}", then "minimum of
none and four" evaluates to min {'none',4} = min {4} = 4.

However, I don't believe proposal 7448's adoption index actually _was_
'none' at the time R106 was applied to it. According to R2034,
"A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes
self-ratifying claims that [..] (if the indicated outcome was to adopt
a proposal) such a proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.".

The message resolving the relevant decision
(https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06802.html)
clearly indicated the AI of proposal 7448 as 1. Nobody objected, so the
claim self-ratified and caused p7748's AI to become 1 "at the time the
ratified document was published" according to R1551, which I believe to
be before the application of R106.

Therefore, R016 "saw" a proposal with an AI of 1 and subsequently set
the power of the proposal to 1 before causing it to take effect; so
p7448 had in fact insufficient power to award an patent title.

I judge FALSE and award myself a Blue Ribbon (I'm still 3h20 short of
the deadline!).

========================================================================

Motion to Reconsider by scshunt:

I intend, with 2 support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this case.

It is true that there is self-ratification involved in order to make
the proposal resolution mechanism work, however! ratification causes a
minimal change to the game state to be applied.

In other words, the self-ratification of the resolution only causes a
minimal change to the game state to ensure that the following three
things are true:
- The proposal exists
- The proposal was adopted
- The proposal took effect

None of these things is inconsistent with the proposal having no AI.
Thus the minimal game state modification is to do nothing.

There is possibly an argument that the AI refers to "such a proposal
existed", however, I do not think that should be interpreted in that
fashion. If the AI is included in that ratification, then the text is
as well. This in turn implies that an Assessor could scam
self-ratification by subtly changing the text of a proposal, which is
clearly not the intent (otherwise why would the author carefully limit
what is self-ratified?) and also bad for the game.

Thus the "such a proposal existed" exists should be interpreted
minimally, without reference to any additional properties defined by
the Assessor.

========================================================================

Judge's Arguments by G.:

Aranea has already laid the groundwork for this opinion, primarily
by citing R2034:
"A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes
self-ratifying claims that [..] (if the indicated outcome was to adopt
a proposal) such a proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.".

scshunt, in eir Motion to Reconsider, claims that:
[...] the self-ratification of the resolution only causes a
minimal change to the game state to ensure that the following three
things are true:
- The proposal exists
- The proposal was adopted
- The proposal took effect
None of these things is inconsistent with the proposal having no AI.

However, when we refer to "such a proposal" existing, we have to ask
what properties define the proposal that "exists", and is AI included?

For a long time, both the Promotor and Assessor have habitually
published results with a Table of Results up front, and then a list
of Proposals (in the case of the Assessor, the adopted proposals only). 
For example, recently:

[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals.  For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]

*7772  scshunt    3.0  Tie-Breaking Votes
*7784  omd        0.2  Mammon Machine

Then later in the message:

Text of adopted proposals:

ID: 7772
Title: Tie-Breaking Votes
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: scshunt
Co-author(s):

Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing

The Top Table clearly refers to DECISION AI, not Proposal AI.  But the
lower section is labeled "text of adopted proposals" and lists
properties associated with PROPOSALS (authors and co-authors, etc). 
Therefore, I find that, if listed this way, the second listing
refers to the AI of the Proposal, not the Decision.

Therefore, in this case, the ratification is that "such" a proposal
as listed in the lower section (including its AI) is adopted, which
ratifies the AI successfully.  The Assessor's Report for proposal 7448
followed this model, so the AI was ratified at too low of a power to
make the disputed patent award.

I judge FALSE.

========================================================================