Index ← 3720 CFJ 3721 3722 → text
===============================  CFJ 3721  ===============================

      G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of 17-Feb-2019.

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

Caller:                        G.
Barred:                        twg

Judge:                         D. Margaux
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     05 Mar 2019 20:48:49
Assigned to D. Margaux:                           05 Mar 2019 21:09:25
Judged TRUE by D. Margaux:                        06 Mar 2019 17:14:41

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

Caller's Arguments:


I plan to provide proof to the judge of the CFJ that a statement
containing the required earnings information hashes to the
previously-published hash.

CFJ 3714 implied fairly strongly that it is not required to state the
coins earned "to someone else".  It was "stated" in a written form,
and the hash of the written form is the proof that I did so at that
particular time.  CFJ 3714 strongly suggested that "stating it" in
Discussion would work, with the only question being the burden of
proof that the statement was, in fact, made in some form (since
Discussion is visible to others, that satisfies the burden of proof).
I don't see how, if Discussion would work (as CFJ 3714 specifically
allows), "stating it" to a hash generator with proof that statement
was made at that time is any different.

I don't think any application would be retroactive, I think it would
be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed".  But because I'm
interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the
original statement text at this point in time.

Addendum:  Didn't notice that the evidence of the statement had been
clipped off this thread.  The message in question is this one:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040091.html

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

Judge's Evidence:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> For the record, I have emailed the requested information to the Judge.

Judge's Arguments:


Under Rule 2496/11, a player CAN earn a reward for publishing a
duty-fulfilling report by "stating how many assets e earns as a result
of the action."  The Rule does not require that this statement be made
by announcement.  In this case, the Caller wrote down the number of
assets e earned and sent it to an online hashing tool with the intent
for it to qualify as a Rule 2496/11 "statement." The Caller also
published the resulting hash as confirmation that e did, in fact, send
that purported "statement" to the online hashing tool before the
deadline.  The Caller privately informed me that the hashed text was
"I claim a reward of 5 coins for my most recent Herald's Weekly
Report."  I am satisfied that hashing that text does yield the hash
value that e published within the deadline.

The question is whether, on those facts, did the Caller in a timely
manner "stat[ed] how many assets e earn[ed]," as those terms are used
in Rule 3721?  In my view, the Caller did do so for the following
reasons:

Rule 3721 does not require that a Caller "publish" or "announce" the
number of assets e earned.  As a result, a public message is not
required to satisfy that Rule.  Instead, it is required only that the
Caller "stat[e]" the number of assets constituting the award within
the time period.

The Rules do not define what is entailed in this kind of
"stat[ement]," so we look to the ordinary meaning of the word. The
relevant meaning of "state" is "express something definitively or
clearly in speech or writing."  Here, the hash is satisfactory proof
that the Caller had "express[ed]" the right number of assets
"definitively [and] clearly in . . . writing" at the time that e
submitted that text to the hashing website.

The Rule does not require the Caller to make the "stat[ement]" to any
particular audience, and so it seems to be enough if the Caller within
the relevant time period expresses the correct number of assets in
some sort of medium outside of eir own mind (whether written, typed,
spoken, etc.).

Theoretically, the Caller could have submitted the text to the hashing
website before the report was published, and I have considered judging
this CFJ "DISMISS" for insufficient information based on that
possibility.  The Caller assures me, however, that e did submit the
text to the hashing website within the time allotted, and the fact
that e did publish the corresponding hash value within the time period
corroborates that assertion.  In light of that corroboration, and in
the absence of any reason to think otherwise, I do believe that e did
submit it to the hashing website within the relevant time period.

Therefore, I judge CFJ 3721 TRUE.

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