Index ← 3658 CFJ 3659 3692 → text
===============================  CFJ 3659  ===============================

      D Margaux has won the game by apathy.

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

Caller:                        G.
Barred:                        D. Margaux

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     13 Sep 2018 19:49:20
Assigned to Aris:                                 16 Sep 2018 22:36:03
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             23 Sep 2018 20:32:58
Motion to Reconsider filed by Aris:               26 Sep 2018 22:05:39
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             07 Oct 2018 21:22:31

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

Caller's Arguments:

There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent announcements,
and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn
clear about intent announcements:

R1728:
       1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
          action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
          method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method),
          at most fourteen days earlier.

"Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the
announcement in question is "clear".

And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of
N and/or T for each method)".  In eir announcement of intent, e refers to
1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1.
While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default"
N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out.  Saying
"if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not
synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1.


Caller's Evidence:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465,
> specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, myself
> and twg.
>
> In celebration thereof,
>
>      I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the Game,
> and
>
>      I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining on this
> parade.
>
> -D Margaux
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: D Margaux 
> Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM
> Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc.
> To: Agora Business 
>
>
> The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it seems
> only fair to warn everyone--I plan to issue 2 blot unforgiveable fines this
> upcoming Thursday for any weekly/monthly reports that are due today and are
> not submitted by end of day on this upcoming Wednesday.  If there are more
> than 3 such late reports, then I plan to invoke R2532 to have my zombie
> Point eir Finger at the additional people, since I can't issue SJ to more
> than three people.  I suspect that use of my zombie could be controversial,
> but Finger Pointing isn't listed as an excluded action by R2532, so I think
> it is permitted.  Let me know if any one disagrees with that, though, and I
> might not do it that way.  Also, maybe somewhat less controversially, I
> note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke R2465 on Thursday
> with regard to any players at that time who are located on (-2, 2), which I
> think is my land, but if any one objects to that then I won't.  Thanks.
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Aris's Arguments:

On Motion to Reconsider

Addendum to the Verdict

I moved for the reconsideration of this case so that D. Margaux could present
arguments about the status of the phrases "unambiguous and clear" and
"unambiguous and clearly" as legal doublets. I now rule that these phrases
are in fact legal doublets, but that does not mean that they cannot have
the meaning I proposed. No other interpretation has been suggested,
and I think my original one fits perfectly well with the clear-meaning
of the words. Accordingly, I affirm my previous verdict of FALSE.

Original Judge's Arguments

D. Margaux sent a public message saying, in part, "Also, maybe somewhat less
controversially, I note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke
R2465 on Thursday with regard to any players at that time who are located
on (-2, 2), which I think is my land, but if any one objects to that then
I won't." Receiving no objection, e did so. What no one realized (or at least
said publicly) at the time was that D. Margaux had attempted to intend to
declare Victory by Apathy Without Objection. I am called here today to decide
whether or not this attempt succeeded.

The main issue of this case is whether the intent was announced "unambiguously
and clearly", as required by Rule 1728. There is some argument as to what
these words mean in this context, so I will now attempt to define them based
on my sense of their common definitions. I will assume that these words describe
the resolution operation of a text, that is, the operation of figuring out what
it means, given the lack of any reasonable alternative.

For something to be said "unambiguously" is for it to be said in such a way that
cannot be misinterpreted. To put it formally, X is unambiguous if and only if
the resolution operation, applied to X, completes and selects one possible
meaning. This meaning can be extremely difficult to understand. It can involve
complex synonyms or chains of logic that require specialized training to
understand. The meaning must only be derivable from the information available.
The important part of unambiguity is that after hearing an explanation of what
a text means a person must accept that there is no other reasonable
interpretation.

Next, I turn to the question of what clarity means. It must not mean
unambiguity, because in that case specifying that both are required would be
redundant. The word "clearly" can mean "unambiguously", but just as often it
means "obviously". For something to be obvious means that its approximate
meaning must be easy to understand. Thus, X is clear if and only if the
resolution operation, applied to X, is relatively simple. Note that it need
not complete with only one alternative; all that is required is that it is
easy to get a reasonable understanding of the gist of what is said and what
effects the statement has.

It is important to understand that this definition of clarity applies only when
both "unambiguous" and "clear" are specified. In other cases, "clear" may take
on some amount of the meaning of "unambiguous", rather than "obvious",
but I'll leave that to be decided by a future CFJ. I will also note in passing
that my definition appears to be consistent with CFJ 1460, the only prior
precedent I could find related to this case.

No one would conclude that D. Margaux's message was ambiguous. However,
it was certainly unclear. Circumlocutions such as "the method in R1728(1)"
and "if any one objects" do not make it sufficiently easy to understand that
there is even any formal intent occurring, let alone what it is. For this
reason, D. Margaux never validly intended to win by apathy and e has not
won the game. FALSE.


Judge Aris's Evidence

Rule 2465/0 (Power=0.3)
Victory by Apathy

  A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of
  players. Upon doing so, the specified players win the game.


Rule 1728/38 (Power=3.0)
Dependent Actions

  A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
  an action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1
  unless otherwise specified):

  1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
     than 8. ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
     N = 1.)

  2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer. ("With
     Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)

  3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
     with a minimum of 1.

  4. With Notice.

  5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

  thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of
  the following are true:

  1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
     action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
     method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method),
     at most fourteen days earlier.

  2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
     Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
     least 4 days earlier

  3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
     was announced at least T earlier.

  4. At least one of the following is true:

     1. The performer is the initiator.

     2. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
        holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer.

     3. The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
        action depends on support, the performer has supported the
        intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
        explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.

  5. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
     other rules.

  6. If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was
     given in the announcement of intent to perform the action, all
     those conditions are met.

  The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
  depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
  objections.

Rule 2124/22 (Power=2.0)
Agoran Satisfaction

  A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
  publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
  an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a
  dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
  (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to
  perform the action.

  The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent action
  are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the
  document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous
  sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not
  eligible to support it.

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
  and only if:

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

  2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
     N or more supporters; and

  3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
     the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
     action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

  4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

  The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
  and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24
  hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent.

  The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with the intent
  if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.

  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
  before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
  type of response.

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