=============================== CFJ 3567 ===============================
With the below resolution of intent, VJ Rada won the game by
Caller: V.J. Rada
Barred: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Called by V.J. Rada: 27 Sep 2017 14:18:12
Assigned to G.: 01 Oct 2017 17:43:42
Judged FALSE by G.: 01 Oct 2017 17:44:32
First: Is the text, with no spaces between apathy and the next
without, sufficient to create many many intents to win by apathy?
Second: Was Gaelan's attempt sufficient? That consists of finding and
replacing my words with what appears to be "I object" in Chinese.
2a: Is this OK under our language precedents?
2b: Is simply typing "I object" as many times as there are intents,
without more, enough to unambiguously signify which intents the
objector is objecting to?
Third: Is Aris's attempt to object sufficient? E simply stated "I
object to all the intents in the below message" or similar. Under our
precedents, which ban somebody from taking an unreasonable number of
actions in shorthand where copying and pasting would be hard, does
this shorthand take too many actions? Is our precedent in this area,
more common-law than textual, able to be flexibly applied to serve the
purpose of stopping scams as Aris contends?
Judge G.'s Arguments:
Announcing intent, support, and objections are speech acts; that is,
stating that you intend to do something, support something being done,
or object to it are things that you do "naturally" do via speech (i.e.
via text communiction).
Neither intent, support, or object are "by announcement" actions,
meaning you don't *necessarily* do them by inciting the spell "I hereby
intend/support/object" as required by R478 for "by announcement"
actions. Announcing it that way gets the job done in the clearest
manner possible, so it's a good idea. But there's other ways to
In particular, R1728 is written "backwards" in time. It asks, at the
time you attempt to actually *perform* a dependent action, was a
clear intent published 4-14 days earlier? For this to be true, there
has to be a datestamped message indicating intent in that time range.
The truth/falsity of this question can be judged whether or not the
message expressed an intent once or 100 times - in other words (and
since we aren't required by "by announcement" restrictions), it's
reasonable to interpret a message saying it 100 times as a single
expression of intent to do something. (For this case, I'm assuming that
the message has no other actions in between each "I intend" message.
I'm leaving out examples that have in-between actions for another time).
Further, an Objection can be expressed generally, as again we are not
constrained to do a 1-1 mapping as Objection isn't "by announcement".
It is reasonable to assume that objections can cover a well-specified
range of past intents, even ones posted at different times by different
people. For example, we've in the past allowed "I object to all
announcements of intent to do X" to cover all such past intent
announcements, even if they came from multiple people. This might be
considered unofficial "nesting" of individidual actions, but it is
equally in keeping with the rules (in the absense of the the "by
announcement" strict format requirements) to read this single objection
as appying to any number of past intents.
This might seem like having it two ways: multiple intents in one
message count as a single intent, while single objections apply to
multiples. This brings in the final "good of the game" question. The
purpose of intended actions is to bring full public transparency and
choice-making to attempts to perform actions. Therefore, it is for the
good of the game to interpret toward strictness in intent announcements,
but more flexibly in counting objections.
In the current case, there was then 1 announcement of intent, and at
least one posted objection referring to "all" such intents. Therefore,
there were no intents that were not objected to when the action was