============================= CFJ 3455 =============================
OscarMeyr is not currently a player.
Called by nichdel: 03 Aug 2016 16:15:29 GMT
Assigned to G.: 23 Aug 2016 16:06:11 GMT
Judged TRUE by G.: 23 Aug 2016 16:22:24 GMT
So my concern with this is partially that I accepted a bet made by
The conditions of this bet have come to fruition. I lost because
proposal 7806 was submitted in that time and eventually adopted.
None of the ABM's constitution requires either party of the bet to be
a player for any of the bets effects to occur. The relevant parts:
Budget Switches and Becomming a member:
Reference to a Budget Switch for a person in this Charter refer to
the Budget Switch for the pair consisting of that person and this
Any non-member of this Organization can join it via flipping eir
Budget Switch to 25.
Defining a bet:
A Bet is an announcement of the form "I bet X Expenditure that Y by
Z." or "I bet X Expenditure that Y before Z", where X is a positive
integer (the bet's Amount), Y is a description that could potentially
in the future apply to some subset of Agora's gamestate (the bet's
Subject), and Z is a time in the future (either an absolute time, or
a time described relative to some gamestate event, e.g. "the
resolution of an Agoran Decision to accept [a specific proposal]")
(the bet's Deadline).
(That doesn't appear to even require you to be a member to make a bet,
or a player...)
Accepting a bet:
For each Bet, its Bet Acceptance is the first announcement before its
Deadline that quotes that Bet, and states that it accepts that Bet
(or, if the author of the Bet is the author of the announcement, that
it withdraws that Bet). If a Bet has a Bet Acceptance, then it is an
(Again, doesn't appear to require that someone is a member or player.)
Won bet actions:
The following two changes are Appropriate once for each Won Bet, if
both changes are made in the given order in the same message and with
no other actions taken in between:
- Flipping the Budget Switch for the author of its Bet Acceptance by
increasing it by the Bet's Amount; and
- Flipping the Budget Switch for the author of the Bet itself by
decreasing it by the Bet's Amount (or to 1, if this decrease would
take it below 1).
The bet was made on the 15th of July, and I accepted on the 17th. At
this time, the most recent Secretary report was more recent than the
most recent Registrar report, and listed a budget switch for
Under the interpretation that OscarMeyr was a player during this time,
I certainly owe some budget to em, regardless of current citizenship. If
not, the ABM appears to indicate that my budget switch should decrease
anyway. My CFJs are intended to clarify whether OscarMeyr's budget
switch existed then or now and whether it needs to be changed for the
betvictory. Also, the ABM probably needs some tweaks.
The caller suggests that self-ratification of a switch that only exists for
players had the indirect effect of making OscerMyer into a player.
However, I take the public statement made by OscarMyer (in EVIDENCE) as
evidence that OscarMyer did not intend to consent to being or becoming a
player at any time since January 28th, 2014.
Therefore, due to this clause (R869):
The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
the state of OscarMeyr being a player (even for an instant) without
willful consent is inconsistent with the rules, therefore the ratification
would not make em a player as (R1551):
Such a modification
cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules
Since adding a non-player switch is also inconsistent with the Rules
(R2459), there is no possible modification to the gamestate that
is not inconsistent. Therefore the ratification simply fails (R1551):
If no such modification is
possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification
There are some situations under which a ratification of Citizenship might
succeed. For example, if a player was deregistered due to error, the
ratification of em back into being a Player a Registrar's report, along with
a statement from the person that e *wanted* to be a player (or participation
evidence that showed e thought emself to be a player), might satisfy the
consent clause. But in this case, the indirectness of the ratification
process (a switch secondary to Citizenship) and OscarMeyr's own statements
that e thought e was not a player, are sufficient to establish lack of
consent, thus failure of the ratification.
Submitted by OscarMeyr to the public forum on 17-Aug-16:
> Useful statements (as opposed to gratuitous arguments):
> The Registrar's report dated 30 Jul 2016 shows that statement 1 is TRUE. That
> report's player history section does not include 2014, at least in my email
> reader; even so, I acknowledge that statement 2 is reasonably accurate.
> The Registrar's report dated 24 Jun 2016 indicates that I last deregistered on
> 28 Jan 2014. So statement 2 is also TRUE.