Index ← 3830 CFJ 3831 3832 → text
===============================  CFJ 3831  ===============================

      Murphy published a valid Notice of Honour today.

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

Caller:                        Aris

Judge:                         Alexis
Judgement:                     FALSE

Judge:                         Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

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

History:

Called by Aris:                                   25 Apr 2020 06:35:08
Assigned to Alexis:                               25 Apr 2020 20:05:03
Judged FALSE by Alexis:                           26 Apr 2020 18:41:54
Motion to reconsider self-filed:                  26 Apr 2020 18:41:54
Judged FALSE by Alexis:                           26 Apr 2020 18:41:54
Judgement entered into Moot:                      19 May 2020 23:54:22
Moot resolved as Remit (Alexis recused):          31 May 2020 19:06:03
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:      31 May 2020 19:20:12

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

Caller's Evidence:

On 25 Apr 2020 02:46:37 GMT Edward Murphy wrote in agora-business:
> This is a Notice of Honour:
> -1 kudo: ATMunn, randomly chosen zombie
> +1 kudo: PSS, testing the finger-pointing rules in an interesting way


Caller's Arguments:

In eir purported Notice, Murphy referenced kudos. Kudos are currently 
undefined. It is unclear whether the Notice specifies players who are to
gain and lose honor, as required by Rule 2510, or instead specifies
players who are to gain and lose kudos. I think it's probably clear 
enough, but that's ambiguous.

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

Judge Alexis's Arguments (mooted):

The requirement in Rule 2150 is, as Aris claims, to publish a notice
announcing which player gains and loses karma. The karma system is similar
to an earlier system which used kudos, and an even earlier one which used
props, so there is clearly some similarity there.

As two hypotheticals, we can consider whether Muphy's notice would have
worked if e had specified a) some rule-defined asset/switch or b) a word
that doesn't have Agoran connotations at all.

If Murphy's notice had specified ±1 coin, then it clearly would fail. The
notice would be specifying who gains and loses coins, something quite
well-defined, rather than karma.

If it had instead specified ±1 XP, then I think it would also fail. It is
not clear, in the context of the current Agoran rules, what "XP" is (and
to my knowledge, it has never been defined in a way that would make it
make any sense here; if that is not the case, for the sake of this
judgment, assume that it is). But it seems to me that it would be
unreasonable to interpret "XP" as "karma" in this context.

So the only way that Murphy's notice could succeed would be if "kudo"'s
history in some way privileged it to operate as a substitute for karma.
This might be possible if there had been a custom regarding it, or if the
use of kudos was recent history. But neither of these is the case, and the
modern playerbase cannot be expected to know the full details of Agora's
history. So I rule that this is FALSE as the notice does not clearly
specify that it is manipulating karma.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G. (following moot):

As per CFJ 1500, even if a term was very recently defined under the rules,
it falls back to its common definition as soon as the term is removed from
the rules:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500

Now, in eir arguments for this case, Judge Alexis uses the argument that
"if [kudos] had been a term like XP (i.e. undefined in the rules), it
would fail."  However, this argument does not consider the common
definitions of such terms (i.e. under R217).   For example, for "XP", a
common-language analysis might say either "XP has no common definition or
meaning, thus fails" or "XP, in a gaming context, refers to 'Experience
Points', which makes no sense in this context so fails."  So for "XP"
Alexis's arguments seems correct.  But only following a common-language
analysis of the questionable term.

In the actual situation, the term used was "kudo/kudos".  The dictionary
definition of the term is "praise and honor received for an achievement".
Given that this dictionary definition of kudos matches the term "honor",
the judge should analyze whether or not this word substitution, when
included in the otherwise correct "Notice of Honour" format, is enough of
a synonym for "karma" (as defined in the rules) to function correctly.

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