Index ← 3789 CFJ 3790 3791 → text
===============================  CFJ 3790  ===============================

      The sending of this message (the entire message, not the enclosed
      message) caused the Officeholder of Comptrollor to be flipped.


Caller:                        Jason Cobb

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Jason Cobb:                             01 Jan 2020 18:07:12
Assigned to G.:                                   12 Jan 2020 21:35:33
Judged FALSE by G.:                               19 Jan 2020 20:44:10


Caller's Evidence:

CFJ 1905, available at .

Arbitor's Evidence: 

Since the CFJ statement cites "the entire message", here's the "entire" 

Caller's Arguments:

If the enclosed message was already successful in flipping the
Officeholder of Comptrollor, this CFJ is trivially FALSE.

Per CFJ 1905, "sent via a Public Forum" means that the Public Forum in
question must "re-send the message to a reasonably large subset of the
set of all persons who have reasonably arranged to receive messages via
that Public Forum".

In this message, the Public Forum, if it functions properly, is sending
the enclosed message to all persons who have subscribed. Thus the
enclosed message fulfills the requirement in CFJ 1905 for being "sent
via a Public Forum", and can take by announcement actions. The enclosed
message fulfills the requirements for random choices because it has a
uniform distribution and was not predictable by Murphy at the time that
e sent the message to the forum.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

The facts:  Murphy sent a message "to" (not "via") a public forum (PF) on
22-Dec-19.  Due to fora delivery difficulties, a significant number of
player subscribers did not receive it, though it appears in the mailman
archives.  It's uncertain, and unlikely given the current discussion and
standing precedent (subject to CFJ 3787), that the initial sending was 
sent "via" the forum at that time, so the message would not be considered 
a public message in the days immediately following 22-Dec.

On 1-Jan-20, Caller Jason Cobb forwarded the message to the PF, claiming
that this effectively "completed the delivery" of the message.  So 
following that forwarding, the original message had been "sent via the 
public forum".

Without delving into SMTP (out of my depth), on one hand this is 
reasonable, as it is conceptually similar to how messages move across the 
internet. Jason Cobb served as a router that detected that certain packets 
hadn't been received (due to error messages received from other players) 
and simply re-sent the packets.  If we forbid this kind of thing, we'd 
literally be forbidding internet-based communication.

Further, let's say the Distributor wrote a script - e sets up a dummy 
email account that's subscribed to the list, and if a message hits the 
archives but doesn't show up in the email account after a certain amount 
of time, the distributor's script automatically mungs the headings and re-
sends it.  I think we would accept that without much blinking (it may play 
havoc with message timing, but that's another matter).

However, the difference is that this "router" of the message was a natural
person and subject to choice and free will about re-sending the particular
message.  This is evidenced by the fact that there were many messages in
that time window that could have been re-forwarded, and only one was 
chosen by Jason Cobb.

Agoran precedent holds that inserting elements of free will (i.e. natural
persons) generally "makes a difference" as to how things function.  In
particular, CFJ 1895 found that, whether or not free will "actually" 
exists (the subject of much of western philosophy so we won't solve that 
here) an important Agoran axiom is that we play under the legal fiction 
that each person is a unique "source of free will" and can't "become" 
another person (e.g. no avatars, no direct taking over) unless the rules 
supply a direct and explicit method for doing so.

R478 defines a public message:
>     A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
>     all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
>     public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
>     message is considered a public message in its own right. To
>     "publish" or "announce" something is to send a public message
>     whose body contains that thing.

Note that this text says nothing about the sender.  It doesn't say "a 
person publishes or announces something by..." but is kept in the passive 
tense. In the next paragraph of R478, "by announcement" actions pay 
attention to the sender and state that the sender is the actor.  But for 
publishing messages in general, there's no such stipulation.  This text 
defining a public message is silent as to the identity of the sender, and 
whether forwarding a message changes the identity of the sender.

As the rules are silent, we turn to precedent, game custom, common sense,
and the good of the game.  And, without going through this point-by-point, 
I assert that, given our precedents on free will, technical domain of 
control, and consent - that the sender of the message is the person (i.e. 
exerciser of free will) who touched it (i.e. exercised free will on its 
path) last.

So in this case, in forwarding the message via the forum, Jason Cobb 
wasn't the delivery agent of a message sent "via the forum by Murphy".  
Instead, Jason Cobb sent (and was the sender) of a message, "on behalf of" 

Nothing in R478, on its own, precludes sending messages on others' behalf,
so in a "deep definition of the forum in R478" sense, this might be
acceptable under some circumstances (e.g. Murphy specifically asks Jason
Cobb to forward on a message).  However currently, "act on behalf" 
messages are governed by R2466, and in particular this:

>                             a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
>      person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
>      might be taken within a message.

Therefore, this message was legally IMPOSSIBLE to send on behalf of 
Murphy, and if taken to be performing the actions within the message 
(setting the Comptrollor), would require Murphy's explicit consent via a 
contract as per R2466, R2519, and R1742.  Lacking this consent, this court 
finds FALSE.