=============================== CFJ 3639 ===============================
This is a CFJ.
Called by ais523: 01 Jun 2018 06:27:09
Assigned to V.J. Rada: 05 Jun 2018 02:48:01
V.J. Rada recuses emself: 05 Jun 2018 05:40:57
Assigned to Aris: 05 Jun 2018 15:24:26
Judged TRUE by Aris: 11 Jun 2018 23:44:30
Is this a future conditional? At the time this message was sent, the
caller couldn't have known whether the CFJ would be called or not.
As for other potential issues, I think there's fairly established
precedent that is is in fact possible to use a third-party mail service
to send an email and have it count as a public action. On the other
hand, there isn't much evidence in the quoted email as to who the
sender was. (Circumstantial evidence does make it seem likely that it
was me, though; and the action should succeed regardless of who sent
it, given that anyone can call a CFJ.)
Finally, is the "comment" field of a set of automated dice roll results
sufficient to take an action by announcement? It's part of the message
body, but may not be labelled clearly enough.
On Thu, 2018-05-31 at 23:27 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> ---- Signed section - include this line ----
> Results sent via email.
> Summary: Possibly a CFJ
> Roll One
> Generating 1 rolls of d6, 1 per line.
> Comment: If this dice rolls an odd number, I call for judgement on
> the statement "This is a CFJ".
Can a person take an action in the comment field of a dice server
message? Not only the outcome of this CFJ, but even the very existence
thereof, depends on it.
First off, I judge this CFJ TRUE. Iff the CFJ exists, it must be true,
so that seems like a pretty safe action. Now for the interesting bit.
First off, precedent is clear that there is no future conditional, or
other difficulty arising from the fact that the caller did not by eir
own hand send the entire message, in this case. Long tradition allows
users to send messages via automated process. Particularly relevant is
CFJ 1719, which states in part
"We've always accepted messages being sent with some degree of
automation in their composition, and messages initiated by a cron
job, as being authored by the responsible person. Often it's not
even possible to tell whether these kinds of automation have been
applied, so attempting to make a distinction would be impractical and
contrary to the best interests of the game."
That CFJ goes on to rule that a web form allowing all comers to use a
player's email is a valid way for a player to delegate their power to
send messages. Nothing nearly so extreme is present in this case.
Additionally, any argument that the message is a future conditional
rests on a misapprehension as to the time of the message's evaluation. A
message is evaluated when it is sent via the public forum, which,
according CFJ 1905, happens when most persons who have arraigned to
receive messages via the forum get it. By the time this occurs, the
conditional is resolvable from the information in the message itself.
The ambiguity as to the caller is far more disturbing. However, I see
nothing in the rules that requires this information to be clear. In the
absence of such a provision, the only case where clearly naming the
sender of the message is required is if that information forms part of
the definition of the action (e.g. moving three right on the map).
Although the caller of the CFJ matters for the purpose of determining
eligibility to judge it, among other things, it is not so crucial as to
form part of the definition of the action. A proposal to address this
bug will be forthcoming shortly, as soon as I figure out a way to phrase
it that isn't terrible.
Remaining is the question of whether a comments field is a suitably
clear place to take a game action. In general, marking part of a message
as intended for comments would likely negate any action purportedly
taken in that section. However, in the particular context of messages
sent via dice server, it is a well known convention that the comments
field is the part of such a message that contains free text. Not
allowing messages in that area would also be very inconvenient. I
therefore determine that for this specific purpose a comments field.
I rule that this CFJ exists and has been judged TRUE.