Index ← 3723 CFJ 3724 3725 → text
===============================  CFJ 3724  ===============================

      An Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 was initiated
      and its outcome is ADOPTED.


Caller:                        D. Margaux

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE



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


Caller's Arguments:

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:

[1] 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;

[2] If the distribution of Proposal 8164 was EFFECTIVE, then in a timely
fashion the Assessor CAN and MUST resolve it to be ADOPTED;

[3] 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;

[4] 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
prevent ratification);

[5] If Proposal 8164 is not ADOPTED, then dependent actions are NOT
fixed retroactively;

[6] Return to step 1 above and repeat.

Sorry all!

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...?

Caller's Evidence:

> 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
conditional votes).
> Proposal ID: 8164   
> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.4
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg
> Adoption Index: 3.1
> Text:
> 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.


Judge's Arguments:

This CFJ is the third of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to
Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3722 and CFJ 3723. This third CFJ
is extremely straightforward to resolve. Rule 955/26, "Determining the
Will of Agora", states that:

    The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and
    cannot change thereafter.

No Agoran decision about whether to adopt Proposal 8164 has been resolved,
so although two have been initiated, neither of their outcomes can
possibly have been determined, whether ADOPTED or otherwise.

I judge CFJ 3724 FALSE.