Index ← 3811 CFJ 3812 3813 → text
===============================  CFJ 3812  ===============================

      Proposal 8317 has AI 1.

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

Caller:                        Gaelan

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Gaelan:                                 10 Feb 2020 00:04:49
Assigned to Aris:                                 19 Feb 2020 15:21:30
Judged FALSE by Aris:                             24 Feb 2020 03:18:44

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

Caller's Arguments:

> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>> PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade)
>>> FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg&
>>> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o
>>> PRESENT (0):
>>> BALLOTS: 11
>>> AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0)
>>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a 
>> bunch of power=2 rules.  In the distribution message, it is listed as 
>> AI-2 in the top part:
>>> 8317e  Alexis                   2.0   Zombie trade
>>
>> and AI-1 in the bottom part:
>>
>>> ID: 8317
>>> Title: Zombie trade
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I
>> doubt the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a 
>> "new power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong?
>
> The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error
> within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of
> clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly
> distributed at AI=2 now.
>
> -Alexis

I’m not so sure it self-ratified, actually.

1551/21 reads, in part: {
An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however, 
if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main 
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize 
information in the main section, and the main section is internally 
consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only 
the main section.
}

1607/47 reads, in part: {
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal 
Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public 
document purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.
}

The Promotor’s message listed the attributes twice, and the text once, of 
each proposal. So this depends on what “this portion” means: does it mean 
the list at the top as well as the full proposals below, or just the full 
proposals below?

If it means just the full proposals, then the proposal ratified at AI 1.

If it means both, then we’ve got an internally inconsistent document, 
according to the 1551 clause I quoted. The question, then, is whether or 
not the "document can be divided into a summary section and a main 
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize 
information in the main section.” The key bit here is “only purpose”—the 
list at the top is actually part of another action (“I hereby distribute 
each listed proposal…”), but that action isn’t part of the self-ratifying 
document, so maybe in this context it only serves on purpose?

If the “summary” clause applies, then it ratified at AI 1.

If not, the document is internally inconsistent and didn’t ratify at all.

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

Judge Aris's Arguments:

I don't think it's plausible that either the full text or the table is
in a distribution is a summary. Neither of them has any sort of marking 
that indicates that it's secondary. In addition, the text is an essential 
parameter of the decision, so the section containing the full text of the 
proposal must be part of the distribution notice. Accordingly, I rule that 
document was internally inconsistent and could not self ratify. I'll note 
in passing that none of the information concerned involved the proposal 
pool, which is self ratifying under Rule 1607, as the caller suggested; 
instead, it involved a notice initiating an Agoran decision, which is self 
ratifying under Rule 107. FALSE.


Judge Aris's Evidence:

Rule 107/21 (Power=3)
Initiating Agoran Decisions

  An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
  initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
  to initiate the decision. To be valid, the notice must clearly
  specify the following information:

  1. The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
     proposal 4781");

  2. The voting method;

  3. A clear description of the valid options;

  4. The identity of the vote collector; and

  5. Any additional information defined by the rules as essential
     parameters.

  The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period
  for the decision. The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum
  voting period for a decision with at least two options is five
  days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options
  CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not
  ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the
  same message.

  The voting period for a decision cannot be set or changed to a
  duration longer than fourteen days.

  A public notice purporting to initiate an Agoran decision is a
  self-ratifying attestation of the notice's validity.

Rule 1551/20 (Power=3.1)
Ratification

  When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified,
  rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified
  to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
  published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
  ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if the
  document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the
  time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine
  the minimal modifications. Such a modification cannot add
  inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot
  include rule changes unless the ratified document explicitly and
  unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting properties
  of the rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or multiple
  substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
  appropriate, the ratification fails.

  An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified;
  however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section
  and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section
  is to summarize information in the main section, and the main
  section is internally consistent, ratification of the document
  proceeds as if it contained only the main section.

  Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
  report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
  The rules may define additional information that is considered to
  be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such
  definitions are secured at a Power Threshold of 3.

  Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.

Rule 1607/46 (Power=3)
Distribution

  The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving
  and distributing proposals.

  Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For
  this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption
  index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if
  the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, and
  coauthors of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating
  such a decision is known as distribution, and removes the proposal
  from the Proposal Pool.

  The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
  Pool at any time.

  In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL distribute each
  proposal that was in the Proposal Pool at the beginning of that
  week, except for those excepted from automatic distribution by
  other rules, or those that are otherwise removed from the Pool.

  Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
  Promotor.

  If there is a Proposal in the Pool that it would otherwise be
  IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute, then any player CAN
  distribute that Proposal without 3 objections.

  The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
  Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion
  of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is
  self-ratifying.

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