Index ← 3794 CFJ 3795 3796 → text
===============================  CFJ 3795  ===============================

      Falsifian would have won the game in the below message if e had
      originally specified intent to win by apathy without objection.


Caller:                        Aris
Barred:                        Falsifian

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Aris:                                   19 Jan 2020 21:56:58
Assigned to Gaelan:                               25 Jan 2020 20:40:47
Gaelan Recused:                                   14 Feb 2020 19:45:21
Assigned to G.:                                   14 Feb 2020 19:56:56
Judged FALSE by G.:                               14 Feb 2020 19:56:56


Caller's Evidence:

[the "below message" of the cfj statement]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 1:46 PM James Cook wrote:
> Sigh. My message stated the wrong method (with notice rather than
> without objection). I withdraw the CFJ I just called.
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 21:36, James Cook  wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 at 16:27, James Cook  wrote:
>>> I intend, with notice, to Declare Apathy, specifying myself.
>>> --
>>> - Falsifian
>> (With apologies and thanks to Jason Cobb.)
>> This message serves three purposes.
>> First, I'm delivering the above-quoted message, which I sent on
>> January 9, to a public forum.
>> Second, (disclaimer: this may not work) I Declare Apathy, specifying
>> myself.
>> Third, I call a CFJ: With this message, I won the game.
>> Arguments:
>> I think the main question here is whether I successfully performed an
>> action with notice under Rule 2595. Conditions 1 and 3 of Rule 2595
>> are the interesting ones: did I publish an announcement of intent
>> between 4 and 14 days preceding the date of this message?
>> I sent my notice of intent to the players of Agora in two steps:
>> first, through myself, and then, through agora-business in this
>> message. So, I have sent it via both myself and a public forum. Since
>> it was sent via a public forum, it is a public message under R478, so
>> under R478, I have announced it. This satisfies condition 1 of Rule
>> 2595.
>> (In eir recent judgment of CFJ 3790, G. found that when Jason Cobb
>> delivered Murphy's message, e did not cause it to be sent via a public
>> forum, but Jason Cobb and Murphy being two distinct people was central
>> to that argument.)
>> In order to satisfy Condition 3 of Rule 2595, my announcement of
>> intent must have been published between 4 and 14 days before now. I
>> attest that I sent the message in question (to myself) on January 9,
>> which is between 4 and 14 days before now. Since R478 says that to
>> "publish" something is "to send a public message...", it seems clear
>> to me that I published it when I originally sent it (i.e. January 9);
>> the date on which it was delivered to the public forum doesn't enter
>> into this definition.
>> (If announcing intent were an action, I'd be on even stronger ground,
>> since R478 explicitly says an action is performed at the time
>> date-stamped on the message.)
>> - Falsifian


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Remember that we're talking about a forward.  We give TTTPF messages the 
date stamp of the forward, not the original.

Gratuitous Arguments by Aris and G.:

On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 05:53, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 9:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 1/22/2020 8:13 PM, James Cook wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 02:11, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>> Why are we reading the date-stamping to refer to the date-stamp of 
>>>> original message? I would think it obvious that the relevant message 
is the
>>>> one to the public forum, not the original one which wasn’t to the 
>>>> forum.
>>>> -Aris
>>> I think this is tricky. I haven't thought about it too carefuly, but
>>> here's a possible argument for saying it should be the date stamp on
>>> the original message.
>> A while back (several years now) there were distribution issues, and to 
make a
>> point ais523 (I think) forged a date header so that a message showed up 
in the
>> forum with a backdate of several years.
>> It was generally agreed that, technically speaking, the date used 
should be
>> the stamp (typically buried in the full headers) on which the message 
>> the forum.  This takes care of a lot of this sort of nonsense.
>> However, it's a simple fact that, it would be beyond a reasonable 
effort for
>> officers, in recordkeeping timestamps, to have to dig for said headers, 
>> that most mail clients hide this data and display the send date.
>> The uneasy compromise we reached was something like "the send date 
>> commonly displayed) is, prima facie, the stamp of record.  However, if 
>> are significant gaps between that date and the listserv arrival date 
>> comes to light if messages don't show up for a while), using the 
>> arrival date is warranted."
>> Not perfect at all.  Naturally this leads to some discrepancies/issues 
e.g. if
>> bids come in seconds before an auction ends but aren't delivered until 
an hour
>> afterwards.  But it would take care of this current issue somewhat.
> I'd add that this sort of approach is backed up by decade old
> precedent; see CFJ 2205.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

I judge CFJ 3795 FALSE.  If you
forward a message to yourself, then later forward it to the forum, the
operative timestamp is when it left your control for the forum (i.e.
the timestamps of the forwarded message).   This is similar to sending
something to the DF, then forwarding it with a TTTTPF - the time used
is the time of the forwarding.