=============================== CFJ 3723 ===============================
The Assessor currently CAN and MAY resolve an Agoran Decision
whether to adopt Proposal 8164 to be ADOPTED.
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 FALSE 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 second of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to
Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3722 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 were INEFFECTIVE.
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.
In CFJ 3722, we established that on 2019-02-28, then-Prime Minister ATMunn
issued a Cabinet Order of Manifesto, distributing Proposal 8164 and
initiating an Agoran decision about whether to adopt it. The voting period
for Agoran decisions is currently 7 days, as specified by Rule 107/20, and
indeed during the 7 days following the distribution of Proposal 8164,
several players attempted to vote on the decision.
The H. Assessor recorded these attempted votes as they were announced,
producing a preliminary tally of votes as follows:
|AI | 3.1 |
|Quorum | 5 |
|Corona Z 7b.| F |
|D. Margaux PM|FFFF |
|G. | FFF |
|Falsifian | FFF |
|L. Z 1b.|+FFF |
|twg 4b.| FF |
|FOR | 16 |
|AGAINST | 0 |
|Ballots | 6 |
#b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
+ Extricated conditional
I believe this tally of attempted votes to be complete and accurate; and
therefore, if the Agoran decision currently exists, and if all the above
attempts to vote in it were EFFECTIVE, then clearly the Assessor now CAN
and MAY resolve it ADOPTED.
However, does the Agoran decision in question exist?
We know that ATMunn held the office of Prime Minister on 2019-02-28.
However, this is inconsistent with the Associate Director of Personnel's
weekly report of 2019-02-24, which states in part:
Office Holder Since Last Election Complexity
Prime Minister *D. Margaux 2019-02-16 2018-11-25 1
It is apparent that the Associate Director of Personnel incorrectly
believed one or more of D. Margaux's attempts to deputise for Prime
Minister on 2019-02-16 to have succeeded. E was clearly aware that some
uncertainty existed, as evidenced by the following disclaimer at the top
of eir report:
[Disclaimer: Depending on laurels, D. Margaux's message on Feb 16 may
have installed Gaelan or D. Margaux as Speaker instead of twg.]
However, this refers only to the holder of Speaker, not the holder of
Prime Minister, and in any case, in CFJ 3643, the H. Judge V.J. Rada held
that a disclaimer attached to a self-ratifying official report does not
prevent the self-ratification of that report. Therefore, and given that
it was not doubted at any point by any player, the incorrect report
self-ratified 7 days after its publication, on 2019-03-03.
Rule 1551/19 explains very clearly what happens when a document is
When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
accurate as possible; however, if the document explicitly
specifies a different past time as being the time the document was
true, the specified time is used to determine the minimal
modifications. Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies
between the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot include rule
changes unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously
recites either the changes or the resulting properties of the
rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or multiple
substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
appropriate, the ratification fails.
The Associate Director of Personnel's incorrect report was published on
2019-02-24, so we must determine the minimal modification to the gamestate
needed at that time to make it true and accurate. Clearly, this simply
means changing the officeholder of Prime Minister to D. Margaux and the
officeholder of Speaker to twg.
The ramifications of this self-ratification are clear. In a hypothetical
game history where D. Margaux became Prime Minister on 2019-02-24, e
clearly could not have acted on behalf of ATMunn to issue a Cabinet Order
on 2019-02-28, as ATMunn would no longer have been the Prime Minister.
Proposal 8164 would therefore never have been distributed. As a result,
the self-ratification changed the gamestate to what it would have been
if Proposal 8164 had not been distributed, annihilating the then-extant
Agoran decision on whether to adopt it.
If the Agoran decision initiated on 2019-02-28 no longer exists, it
clearly CANNOT be resolved. To the best of my knowledge, there is no
other Agoran decision on the adoption of Proposal 8164 that was initiated
more than 7 days ago. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to resolve such a
decision, ADOPTED or otherwise.
I judge CFJ 3723 FALSE.
Furthermore, I would like to note that the situation could have been much
worse if the incorrect Associate Director of Personnel report had
happened to have been published _after_ the attempted Cabinet Order. This
might have resulted in the Assessor resolving the Agoran decision ADOPTED,
making Proposal 8164's retroactive changes to the gamestate immediately
before the Agoran decision was retroactively nullified. This would have
generated a truly alarming mess for the Rulekeepor.
So let's try not do this again, please.