Index ← 3718 CFJ 3719 3720 → text
===============================  CFJ 3719  ===============================

      Falsifian and G. won the game.


Caller:                        Falsifian

Judge:                         D. Margaux
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Falsifian:                              20 Feb 2019 03:56:43
Assigned to D. Margaux:                           20 Feb 2019 12:28:31
Judged FALSE by D. Margaux:                       24 Feb 2019 23:47:30


Caller's Evidence:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 7:57 PM Falsifian wrote:
> Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G.

Caller's Arguments:

1. I "published", or "announced", the following: "Apathy", in this
   message. (I also sent a separate message that just says "Apathy", in
   case anyone insists it has to be by itself in a message for me to
   "publish" it.)

2. Publishing/announcing "Apathy" was a successful action, because
   Rule 478 says: "A person "publishes" or "announces" something by
   sending a public message.". This explicitly specifies a method to
   perform the action of "publishing", or "announcing".

3. Declaring, announcing or publishing "Apathy" have the same meaning, so I
   have also Declared Apathy.

4. A pre-emptive rebuttal: Rule 2465 specifies a method ("without
   objection") by which I can Declare Apathy. However, this is not
   relevant since, as argued above, Rule 478 also specifies a method by
   which I can perform this action, and Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions)
   allows me to use any of the available methods. ("A Regulated Action
   CAN only be performed ... using the methods explicitly specified").

   While it may seem like "Declare Apathy" is a term of art and
   therefore has a "special meaning", "Declare" has a common-word
   meaning and the term of art is not rules-defined, so we should go
   with the common definition for "declare" (R217).  Capitalization is
   generally inconsequential and should not be used to infer that it's a
   term of art.

   Note that even if Rule 2465 were strengthened to say "Other rules
   notwithstanding, a player may only Declare Apathy by the method
   defined in this rule", that restriction would be ineffective, since
   Rule 2465 has lower power than Rules 2125 and 478.

5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
   When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
   to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without
   objection). R2125 supports this in that it separates Action from
   Method. Therefore, "Upon doing so" refers to the action but not the

6. Since I have declared apathy and specified a set of players, by
   Rule 2465, those players (myself and G) win the game.

Judge's Arguments:

Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means
the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy."  I don't
necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE.

The word declaration has several meanings.  In the context of Rule
2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is  a kind of a speech-act: it is a
statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence
(in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy).  It has a similar form
as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when
a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a
legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is

In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain
preconditions are met.  The wedding officiant must be vested with some
legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage,
and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid
marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void.  The monarch must
be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do
so in a constitutional monarchy.  The chair must actually be
recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and
certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be

If authority is lacking, the declaration is void.  So if I were to say
(or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham
Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of
Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all
immediately understand why the declarations are void.

So too here.  Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player
with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into
existence--a victory by Apathy.  The key question is under what
circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy?  The
Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection,
specifying a set of players."  In my view, "without objection" must be
read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is
vested with authority to Declare Apathy.

So what does "without objection" mean?  Well, Rule 1728 says that "a
rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without
objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement"
provided certain conditions are met.  Here, those conditions are
plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are
currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must
fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me
a win by Apathy from December 2018).