=============================== CFJ 3722 ===============================
It was POSSIBLE for D. Margaux acting on behalf of ATMunn to issue
a Cabinet Order of Manifesto in the message quoted below.
Caller: D. Margaux
Called by D. Margaux: 07 Mar 2019 14:20:10
Assigned to twg: 07 Mar 2019 14:27:38
twg recused: 30 Apr 2019 19:35:05
Assigned to Aris: 30 Apr 2019 19:35:05
Judged TRUE by twg via Aris: 30 Apr 2019 19:35:05
The judgements for at least one (and maybe all) of these CFJs should be
A few weeks back, ATMunn was indisputably Prime Minister and Gaelan
attempted to win by apathy. Gaelan’s attempted win would have been
successful except that without-objection intents were broken at that
time. Shortly thereafter, I published an intent to appoint Gaelan
specifically to be Speaker (it was not a general “appoint a speaker”
intent; I specifically said I intended to appoint Gaelan). Then I
attempted to execute that intent and deputise for Prime Minister to do
so. That deputisation would be EFFECTIVE if Gaelan had won by apathy and
had been laureled. As a result, if intents are fixed retroactively, then
Gaelan was retroactively laureled and my deputisation succeeded in
installing me as Prime Minister retroactively.
After I attempted that deputisation, I next acted on behalf of ATMunn to
attempt to distribute by Manifesto a proposal to fix dependent actions
retroactively. I believe a quorum attempted to vote FOR and no one
attempted to vote AGAINST.
Soooooo.... I think that the Assessor can’t resolve this proposal
without resulting in a PARADOX.
To put it another way:
 If dependent actions are NOT fixed retroactively, then ATMunn was
Prime Minister at the time of the below message and the attempted
distribution of Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE;
 If the distribution of Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE, then in a timely
fashion the Assessor CAN and MUST resolve it to be ADOPTED;
 If the Assessor resolves Proposal 8164 ADOPTED, then that
retroactively fixes dependent actions, thereby making me Prime Minister
retroactively at the time of the attempted distribution of Proposal 8164;
 If I was Prime Minister at the time of the attempted distribution of
Proposal 8164, then the attempted distribution by me-acting-as-ATMunn
was INEFFECTIVE, the proposal was never properly distributed, and
therefore the Assessor CANNOT and MUST NOT resolve it to be ADOPTED (and
a CoE to challenge a purported ADOPTION would be proper and would
 If Proposal 8164 is not ADOPTED, then dependent actions are NOT
 Return to step 1 above and repeat.
I think we can fix this by a proposal that
retroactively-retroactively-fixes the gamestate. But in the meantime, I
think these CFJs are PARADOXICAL...?
> On Feb 27, 2019, at 8:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue
the Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the below proposal,
initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it
from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the
Assessor, the quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> Proposal ID: 8164
> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.4
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg
> Adoption Index: 3.1
> The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have
> been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined
> whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted after Proposal
> 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the
> extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.
> Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following:
> A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
> entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
> "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
> intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
> posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
> that intent.
> The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
> an 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
> unless at least one of the following is true:
> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
> are at least N Objectors to that intent.
> 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
> 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
> number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
> times the number of Objectors to the intent.
> The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
> an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
> the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an 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.
This CFJ is the first of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to
Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3723 and CFJ 3724. As background
information, Agora is currently experiencing a minor crisis: new player
Falsifian discovered on 2019-02-14 that Rule 2124/23, "Agoran
Satisfaction", contains text that has unintended effects, with the result
Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it
is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular,
Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was
ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent
message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were
This interpretation was confirmed by the H. Judge Trigon in CFJ 3712. As a
result, it is now known that all attempts to perform dependent actions
other than With Notice or With T Notice since the erroneous text was
introduced in Proposal 7815 on 2016-10-28 have failed.
Proposal 8164 seeks to solve the problem retroactively:
The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have
been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had
determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted
after Proposal 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at
that time. To the extent allowed by the rules, this change is
designated as a convergence.
Rule 2124 is amended [such that it works as intended.]
Unfortunately, it has transpired that the method by which Proposal 8164
was distributed relies upon the failure of dependent actions. D. Margaux
asserts that this means Proposal 8164, upon taking effect, changes the
gamestate to whatever the gamestate would be had it not taken effect,
creating a paradox.
On 2019-02-28, D. Margaux attempted to act on behalf of ATMunn to issue
a Cabinet Order of Manifesto - a privilege ordinarily reserved for the
Prime Minister - to distribute Proposal 8164. This attempt is the message
referred to by the caller. It is not in dispute that D. Margaux is
generally allowed, by contract, to act on behalf of ATMunn. However, it is
not clear that ATMunn was Prime Minister on 2019-02-18, and hence whether
the attempt to distribute Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE. This first CFJ
inquires into whether this was the case.
We know that ATMunn held the office of Prime Minister on 2019-02-10: this
fact is recorded in the Associate Director of Personnel's weekly report
of that date, which was internally consistent, generated no controversy,
and was never formally (or even informally) doubted. We must therefore
determine whether any event between 2019-02-10 and 2019-02-28 caused
ATMunn to cease to be Prime Minister.
I have not discovered any evidence that ATMunn resigned from or was
impeached from eir office during this period, or that an election was
resolved, or that e ceased to be a player, or that a document stating that
e was not Prime Minister was ratified. The only plausible way for em to
cease to be Prime Minister during this period would be for another player
to have deputised for the Prime Minister. In fact, D. Margaux did attempt
to do so several times during the period; I now attempt to ascertain
whether any of these attempts were EFFECTIVE.
The following attempts to win the game have occurred since 2019-01-20:
1. On 2019-01-21, D. Margaux attempted to Win by Politics. This attempt
was judged EFFECTIVE by the H. Judge G. in CFJ 3697.
2. On 2019-02-07, Gaelan attempted to Win by Apathy.
3. On 2019-02-13, D. Margaux attempted to cause emself and twg to Win by
Ordinarily, attempts 2 and 3 would have succeeded, as they met all the
ordinary requirements for Declaration of Apathy. However, Declarations of
Apathy are dependent actions, and so attempts 2 and 3 were INEFFECTIVE due
to the erroneous text in Rule 2124/23. As a result, D. Margaux is
currently the only Laureled player, and this has been the case since
On 2019-02-16, D. Margaux published the following message:
As previously intended, I deputise for Prime Minister to name twg to
If twg is not laureled, then I deputise for Prime Minister to name
Gaelan to be Speaker.
If twg and Gaelan are not laureled, then I deputise for Prime Minister
to name D. Margaux to be Speaker (based on my cheating win—we know for
sure that at least that win was valid).
It should be noted that announcements of intent to deputise for an office
are not dependent actions and were not rendered INEFFECTIVE by the ongoing
issues with Rule 2124. However, D. Margaux's announcements of intent were
nevertheless invalid. Eir first attempt was as follows:
I intend with 2 days’ notice to deputise for Prime Minister to appoint
a Speaker from among the laureled players.
Although no CFJ was judged on the matter, G. asserted that this message
was not a sufficiently clear announcement of intent to deputise for the
purposes of a "particular action" (R2160/19). I hold that G. was correct
in eir assertion: it is clear, as discussed above, that there has been
some ambiguity over which player or players was or were Laureled at the
time, and therefore D. Margaux's message was not sufficient to identify
any single action that e intended to deputise for the Prime Minister to
D. Margaux also made a second announcement of intent:
I intend with 2 days’ notice to deputise for PM to appoint twg to be
However, as discussed above, twg was not Laureled at any time during
February 2019, and so this intent could not have been fulfilled regardless
of its validity. D. Margaux therefore did not successfully deputise for
Prime Minister at any point during the events in question, meaning that
ATMunn remained Prime Minister, and could issue a Cabinet Order, on
It is correct that, should Proposal 8164 take effect in the future, the
gamestate will be changed to whatever it would be had Gaelan, D. Margaux
and twg won the game during February 2019, and therefore that one or more
of D. Margaux's attempts to deputise for Prime Minister had been
EFFECTIVE. However, as ais528 stated in eir gratuitous arguments, this
future modification of the gamestate does not and will not change what
I judge CFJ 3722 TRUE.