Index ← 3509 CFJ 3510 3511 → text
==============================  CFJ 3510  ==============================

      In the last seven days, I conditionally paid Publius Scribonius
      Scholasticus 20 shinies on three separate occasions.

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

Caller:                       o

Judge:                        Quazie
Barred:                       Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                    FALSE

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

History:

Called by o:                  24 May 2017
Assigned to Quazie:           24 May 2017
Judged FALSE by Quazie:       24 May 2017

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

Caller's Evidence:

Exhibit A:

On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson 
wrote:
> 
> TTttPF.
> 
> -o
> 
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  > scribonius.scholasticus@googlemail.com  > asticus@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
> > > 
> > > In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited
> > > G.’s Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies
> > > for rendering judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it
> > > remained unjudged.
> > 
> > Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel,
> > and Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
> > 
> > -o

Exhibit B:

On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson 
wrote:
> 
> TTttPF.
> 
> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On May 20, 2017, at 11:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  > scribonius.scholasticus@googlemail.com  > asticus@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo.
> > 
> > In final and complete satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited
> > G.’s Shinies, I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies
> > for rendering judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it
> > remained unjudged.
> > 
> > Well done to our judges Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel,
> > and Gaelan. Your service is much appreciated.
> > 
> > -o

Exhibit C:

On May 22, 2017, at 12:06 AM, Owen Jacobson 
wrote:
> 
> On May 20, 2017, at 11:27 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus  scribonius.scholasticus@googlemail.com  asticus@googlemail.com>> wrote:
> > 
> > I find CFJ 3468 to be trivially TRUE
> > 
> In partial satisfaction of my pledge, if I inherited G.’s Shinies,
> I pay Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 20 shinies for rendering
> judgement on one of the listed CFJs while it remained unjudged.

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

Judge's Arguments:

First off, I think there isn't much of a question around if o
conditionally paid PSS 20 shinies, once, for PPS's judgment of 3468.  
That happened, it was sent to a Public Forum, i'm not going to talk any
further on it.

So the real question is: Did o actually perform the conditional payment
of 20 shinies for 3469 twice?

Today, friends, we're going to get into what it means to send a message
to Agora.  We'll discuss intent, we'll cite some past CFJs, and we'll
come to an altogether unified document on these types of things.  It 
might not be correct forever (One can always set new precedence, or
write new rules) but I think this will stand the test of time based on
some bricks we'll build on.

First off, let's take a peek at a few CFJs from the past.  An
interesting one is https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2056

To summarize the findings in this CFJ, a message sent with two public
forums in the to line counts as one attempt at any actions within the
message.  Additionally, it states that if one message was sent to public
forum 1, and another similar message was sent to public forum 2
attempting to do the same actions in a similar wording, then it would be
one action.

That is not the exact case here.  Here o sent two functionally
equivalent message to the same forum.  It seems like that wouldn't be
much of a stretch to state that this falls under the same precedence,
but I have a bit of an issue with that: If I sent out a message saying 
"I pay o one shiny" and then, the next day (as in this case) send the
same message, in my mind there is little doubt that players will
interpret that as two separate messages.  It's the same forum, there are
different send dates by 1 day (It's not like I couldn't verify if the
message was received in ~24 hours), and thus two separate actions.

So, if we can't call these two functionally the same messages one action
because of this explicit time gap, what can we use to unify the messages
into one explicit intent?

'TttPF' syntax is a tradition within Agora, and, just so happens, was
used in both Exhibit A and Exhibit B to forward a non-public message to
a public forum.

Reading into more judicial precidence we find that root helped solidify
an important precedence in CFJs 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451 and 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452, but we'll work
off a more recent judgment by Machiavelli from 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3221 where e
summarizes root's precedence.

[When dealing with messages that are essentially 'TTttPF' followed by a
quoted message]
{{{
  Judge root's precedent is that Agora is only concerned with the inner
  message, as long as the outer message is sufficiently simple and clear
  as to make it clear what the inner message is.
}}}

Thus Exhibit A and Exhibit B both reduce down to the same exact message,
and thus only one message was sent to a public forum, and thus only one
action was taken by that innermost message.

So the question remaining is when did o conditionally give PSS 20
shinies for eir judgement of 3469?

Options include:
1 - The time of the non-public message
2 - the time of Exhibit A
3 - the time of Exhibit B

I very much am against 1 - the action can't take effect until it's been
on a public forum.

I am also against 3 - The timing of an action's effect should be the
first time it hits a public forum.

Thus - O gave 20 shinies conditionally to PSS for eir judgement on 3469,
one time, on or around May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM (Unknown to me timezone).

I judge 3510 FALSE as only two conditional payments happened.

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