Index ← 3547 CFJ 3548 3549 → text
==============================  CFJ 3548  ==============================

      A player that announces intent to perform an action without N
      objections does not need to wait four days before performing it.

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

Caller:                       V.J. Rada          

Judge:                        Murphy

Judge:                        G. 
Judgement:                    TRUE

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

History:

Called by V.J. Rada:          31 Jul 2017                    
Assigned to Murphy:           31 Jul 2017
Murphy Recused:               26 Aug 2017
Assigned to G.:               26 Aug 2017
Judged TRUE by G.:            27 Aug 2017     

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

Caller's Arguments:

The operable text is "If the action is to be performed *With N
Objections*, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent
was announced at least 4 days earlier."

"With N objections" is meant to say "Without N objections" but
there is no time period enumerated for performing an action without
N objections. I guess a time period should be read in as a matter
of common law (to stop people from ratifying themselves winners
instantly) but still.

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

Judge's Arguments:

If the Rules state an action CAN be performed Without N Objections, it
must satisfy all of a set of conditions (1)-(6) in Rule 1728 to be
performed.

I'll assume that the attempted action in question meets conditions
1,3,4, and 6 as these vary depending on the situation, and aren't the
subject of the CFJ.

For condition (5), "Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as
defined by other rules", R2124 is fairly straightforward, Agora is
satisfied:

       1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then
          it has fewer than N objectors;

It is clear that, at the moment an Intent is posted, then the intent
has no Objections, as "A person CANNOT support or object to an
announcement of intent before the intent is announced".  So for a
Without N Objections intent, condition (5) is true when the intent is
posted.  Any other reading would break Dependent actions entirely.

So, condition (2) reads: 
        2. If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N
           Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced
           at least 4 days earlier.

Textually, this does not apply to Without N Objections, only With N
Objections, so by the text, this condition is met (i.e. doesn't apply)
for a Without N Objections action.

The only counter-argument I can see is as follows:  "Since there's no
method called "With N Objections", it's obviously a typo, and it's clear
that we should read it as applying to "Without N Objections."  This is
the "common law" interpretation that the Caller suggests.

However, such an interpretation goes against R217:  "When interpreting
and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence."
Furthermore, I don't think it's in the "best interests of the game" to
interpret this as a typo and say "With = Without".  A large part of the
fun in the game is looking for textual loopholes, and when one is
painfully clear, we should abide by it, and it's for the good of the
game to permit this kind of classic Agora Nomic gameplay. 

Also, the History is worth noting.  The "with N Objections" text was
inserted into R1728 by Proposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016.
Alexis has been known for inserting purposeful scams in the rules, and
for using loopholes (most recently, just around this same time, see
R2486), and changing a negative to a positive is a classic way to sneak
in a loophole.  It is quite possible that this was purposeful, so we
can't say the "intent" of the Proposal, which was correctly adopted, was
or wasn't to insert a loophole.  Whether or not it was purposeful, it is
for the good of the game that we respect and accept that this very
textually clear loophole was fully vetted by the voters, and allow it to
function and for whomever finds it to exploit it.

TRUE.

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