Index ← 3699 CFJ 3700 3701 → text
===============================  CFJ 3700  ===============================

      In the message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1
      coin.

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

Caller:                        G.
Barred:                        twg

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     01 Feb 2019 14:18:51
Assigned to Trigon:                               03 Feb 2019 21:14:26
Judged TRUE by Trigon:                            06 Feb 2019 17:32:12
Trigon files Motion to Reconsider:                07 Feb 2019 15:56:47
Trigon recuses emself:                            07 Feb 2019 15:56:47
Assigned to Murphy:                               07 Feb 2019 15:58:35
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                            10 Feb 2019 18:05:48

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

Caller's Arguments:

The requirement for earning a reward is explicit and literal in R2496: a
player does it by "stating how many assets e earns as a result".  Accepting
quang in this context means accepting that you can state how many assets you
earn by NOT stating how many assets you earn.  This is more nonsensical than
is usual even for Agora, and if Rule text and words are going to mean
anything, it simply shouldn't work. 

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

Caller's Evidence:

On 1/29/2019 9:17 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I quang Arbitor and Registrar 

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

Gratuitous Arguments by twg:

Counter-argument: To "quang" an office was earlier defined as being to
earn 5 coins for publishing that office's most recent report, and
appears now to have entered common Agoran parlance (totally
unintentionally on my part, I assure you). The set of assets "5 coins"
is part of the definition of "quang", and therefore a statement that one
quangs _is_ a statement that one earns 5 coins.

A similar situation would be if somebody said, "I earn a number of coins
1 greater than 4 for publishing the most recent Arbitraryofficor
report." E would not have explicitly used the digit "5" in the string of
characters making up eir statement, but it quite clearly means exactly
the same thing as "I earn 5 coins for publishing the most recent
Arbitraryofficor report.", and should be acceptable to R2496.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by CuddleBeam:

It's invalid because they obviously didn't shimmy the dimmies.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

The message was "I quang Arbitor and Registrar", and the question is
whether "quang" satisfies Rule 2496's "stating how many assets" even if
you don't quote the original non-rules definition:

  1) To "quang" an office is to earn 5 coins for publishing that
     office's most recent report.

  2) To "quang" a player is to act on the player's behalf to transfer
     all eir liquid assets to oneself.

If Rule 2496 said "explicitly stating", then I would judge FALSE. But it
doesn't.

If these were the only definitions publically claimed, then I believe it
would still count as "stating". They're reasonably easy to find in the
archives (from about one month ago), it's reasonably obvious that #1 is
the one that applies, the Treasuror is likely familiar with #1 by now,
and the amount stated in #1 (5 coins) involves no further computation or
lookup.

The issue is muddled by these competing definitions, publically claimed
prior to this CFJ:

  3) I quang twg to Cuddlebeam.
     "Quang" means to publish a notice of honour, -1 to twg for trying
     to force double-meanings onto "Quang", +1 to CuddleBeam for
     flooping the whoop.

  4) I quang the whoop.
     "Quang" means to floop.

However, as #1 is still the only one that causes the message quoted in
evidence to evaluate to something meaningful, I still think it's clear
enough.

TRUE.

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