Index ← 3758 CFJ 3759 3760 → text
===============================  CFJ 3759  ===============================

      Jason Cobb has Declared Apathy.

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

Caller:                        Jason Cobb

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Jason Cobb:                             18 Jul 2019 02:19:02
Assigned to Aris:                                 23 Jul 2019 16:36:57
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             30 Jul 2019 18:59:35

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

Caller's Evidence:

    "Intent":

        Any public message that I have sent between 4 and 14 days ago,
        maybe this one:
        https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2019-July/040825.html

    Excerpt from Rule 478 ("Fora"):

        A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
        public message.

    Rule 2595 ("Performing a Dependent Action"):

        A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
        an action by a set of one or more dependent actions identified in
        Rule 1728 thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement
        if all of the following are true:

        1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent
            that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
            obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken and the
            method(s) to be used;

        2. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule
            unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation
            states:

            * the value of T, if the action is to be taken with T Notice;
              and

            * the value of N, if N is not equal to 1 and the action is to
              be taken Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N
              Agoran Consent;

        3. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule was
            published:

            * within the 14 days preceding the action, if the action is to
              be performed With N Support;

            * between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is
              to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent,
              or With Notice; or

            * between T and 14 days preceding the action, if the action is
              to be performed With T Notice;

        4. At least one of the following is true:

              * the performer is the initiator;

              * the initiator was authorized to perform the action due to
                holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer;
                or

              * the initiator is authorized to perform the action, the
                action depends on support, the performer has supported the
                intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not
                explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it;

        5. Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
            other Rules; and

        6. The conditions are all met, if any conditions were stated in
            the announcement of intent referenced in paragraph (1) of this
            Rule.

        The performer SHOULD publish a list of supporters and objectors if
        the action is to be taken with N Agoran Consent.

    Excerpt from Rule 2124 ("Agoran Satisfaction"):

        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.

    Rule 2465 ("Victory by Apathy"):

        A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set
        of players. Upon doing so, the specified players win the game.

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

Caller's Arguments:

    The key (broken) wording here is from Rule 478:

        A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
        public message.

    This wording does not require that the public message actually
    contains the "something" that I am publishing/announcing. This
    wording effectively says that, for all X, a person "publishes" or
    "announces" X by sending a public message.

    Rule 2465 states that I can Declare Apathy without Objection. By
    Rule 2595, I must fulfill certain conditions to do so. I will prove
    that I have done so for each one individually:

     1. "[I must have] published an announcement of intent that
        unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation
        specified the action to be taken and the method(s) to be used".
        This invokes the definition of to "publish", which is specified
        in Rule 478. Putting parentheses around the object of to
        publish, "[I must have] published (an announcement of intent
        that unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
        obfuscation specified the action to be taken and the method(s)
        to be used)". Going back to my paraphrased definition of to
        "publish", the parenthesized phrase takes the place of the
        placeholder X, and thus to "publish" such an announcement of
        intent is to send a public message. I certainly have done so, an
        example one is in evidence.
     2. Since Declaring Apathy is taken without Objection, the N in
        "Without N Objections" is 1. Thus, requirement 2 does not
        require it state the value of N, and is thus a no-op in this
        case. The first alternative is irrelevant.
     3. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) was indeed
        published between 4 and 14 days ago.
     4. Requirement 4 is trivially fulfilled, as I am both the performer
        and the initiator.
     5. "Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
        other Rules". Rule 2124 requires that there be no Objectors to
        my "intent" to Declare Apathy. Rule 2124's definition of
        Objector does not use the broken verbiage; so, since no player
        has "publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the
        announcement of [the] intent", there are no Objectors. Agora is
        thus Satisfied.
     6. There were no conditions stated in my intent to Declare Apathy,
        so condition 6 is trivially fulfilled

    I have thus fulfilled all requirements to Declare Apathy and thus,
    by Rule 2595, can do so by announcement (well, the definition of "by
    announcement" also uses the broken verb to "announce", so I may have
    done so anyway). I have made such an announcement in the message in
    which I submitted this CFJ. I have thus Declared Apathy.

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

Judge Aris's Arguments:

The caller's arguments boil down to a contention that every public message
publishes every possible statement. If this is the case, the games is 
deeply and fundamentally broken (or ossified, triggering AiaN 
protections).

The caller's basis for this seemingly absurd argument is Rule 478, which 
states in part "A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a
public message." Read as a definition, this clearly says "To publish X is 
to send a public message." If that were the text in the rules, I would be 
obliged to agree with the caller. However, it is not, and there are other 
possible readings.

If someone remarks that "One gets to the store by walking", it is not the
conclusion of an informed listener that all acts of walking need lead to
the store. Instead, a listener is more likely to read walking as a 
necessary, rather than sufficient condition for reaching the store.

Ordinarily, in an Agoran context, I would be inclined to to read R478 the 
same way the caller does. However, the statement the caller cites in R478 
is ambiguous, as there are multiple possible interpretations of its 
meaning. This means that I am obliged to consult Rule 217, "Interpreting 
the Rules", which says in part "Where the text [of the rules] is silent, 
inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common 
sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the 
game." Past judgements have never ruled on this matter. Both common sense 
and game custom would suggest that R478 identifies a necessary condition, 
rather than a necessary and sufficient one. However, the truly overriding 
concern here is the interest of the game. If the caller's arguments were 
correct, the game would be ossified, and we'd have to figure out whether 
AiaN or the provision at issue were older. Thus, the interests of the game 
are such a large element in this case that whichever interpretation best 
supports them must be chosen; the fact that the other factors agree is 
mere icing on the cake.

So, what does this mean for the game? Rule 478 states an necessary 
condition; not a sufficient one, and thus publishing can only be done in 
public messages. To work out what conditions are sufficient, we must rely 
on common sense. It seems logical that to publish X, a person must send a 
message containing X. R478 merely adds a requirement that that message 
must be public.

Jason Cobb did not publish any message stating eir intent to declare 
victory by apathy. Accordingly, e could not declare apathy. FALSE.

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

Judge Aris's Evidence

Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules

  When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
  takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
  unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
  judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.

  Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
  using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
  can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
  rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
  is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
  common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
  higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
  clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
  clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
  changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
  causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
  with its text.

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
  (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
  matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
  controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
  causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
  e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.

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