=============================== CFJ 3786 ===============================
Proposal 8277 identifies a distributed proposal.
Caller: Aris or G.
Barred: nobody or Aris
Called by Aris (maybe): 23 Dec 2019 07:27:15
Called by G. (maybe): 12 Jan 2020 16:47:30
Assigned to omd: 12 Jan 2020 17:34:15
Judged TRUE by omd: 23 Jan 2020 08:34:27
On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 8:00 PM omd wrote:
> Hi all,
> Starting on December 14, Gmail started rejecting mail being relayed
> from the agoranomic.org list server. I didn't realize this was
> happening until earlier today when someone mailed me directly about
> it; sorry. I have a few theories about why it started happening; I'll
> elaborate on that when I have a chance, but for now I've switched to
> relaying mail through a different server. That's sort of working, but
> it's being rate limited:
> 421-4.7.28 [22.214.171.124 15] Our system has detected an unusual
> rate of
> 421-4.7.28 unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect
> 421-4.7.28 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been
> 421-4.7.28 rate limited. Please visit 421-4.7.28
> https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedRateLimitError to
> 421 4.7.28 review our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines.
> Also, Gmail is rejecting unsolicited subscription confirmation
> messages from the new server.
> I think at this point there's nothing I can do but wait, and hope
> Gmail starts trusting the new server more. Hopefully that doesn't
> take long, or I'll have to do something silly like turn on
> from-address rewriting.
Thank you, omd, for fixing this. I'll be interested to hear your theories.
This is an infernal mess as far as the gamestate is concerned. According
to precedent, messages that aren’t received by a substantial number of
players haven’t been validly sent via the fora. As a test case to see if
we’e gonna apply those precedents here, I CFJ "Proposal 8277 identifies a
Judge omd's Arguments:
Per Rule 2034, the message resolving Proposal 8277  has
self-ratified as an attestation to certain statements, including that
"such a proposal existed". Per CFJ 3449, that ratifies the listed
properties of the proposal, which in this case includes the ID number
8277 itself. According to Rule 1607 only distributed proposals have
ID numbers. Thus, if Proposal 8277 was not actually distributed, the
minimal modification to the gamestate "to make the ratified document
as true and accurate as possible" would be to establish a legal
fiction that Proposal 8277 was distributed.
Note that I long assumed that the past was not part of the "gamestate"
at all, and could not be altered by ratification. Instead, I assumed
that ratification merely altered the present gamestate to 'what it
would be' under a hypothetical timeline where the ratified document
was true. Under that interpretation, ratification wouldn't affect the
outcome of any pending CFJs, because it wouldn't change "the facts and
legal situation at the time the inquiry case was initiated" (R591).
It also wouldn't affect CFJs that explicitly refer to the past.
However, these days we have a precedent that ratification does create
legal fictions about the past. Presumably these should be used
wherever the Rules inquire about the past; I see no exception for
Hopefully the other CFJ lets me resolve the *real* question.