Index ← 3832 CFJ 3833 3834 → text
===============================  CFJ 3833  ===============================

      In the above message, Trigon created a proposal.

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

Caller:                        R. Lee

Judge:                         Jason
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by R. Lee:                                 12 May 2020 04:01:14
Assigned to Jason:                                13 May 2020 21:30:31
Judged FALSE by Jason:                            20 May 2020 00:01:45

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:41 PM Trigon via agora-business wrote:
>
> I retract the quoted proposal and submit the following in its place:
>
> ---
> Title: Agora plays table tennis
> AI: 0.1
> Author: Trigon
> Coauthors:
>
> Create a new rule entitled "Ping Pong" with Power=0.1 that reads:
>
>        The first public message sent by a player each Agoran day must
>        begin with the word ping (case-insensitive). The second public
>        message sent by a player each Agoran day must end with the word
>        pong (case-insensitive).
>
>        If a player fails to include ping or pong as mandated by the
>        previous paragraph, then, in that same Agoran day, any player CAN
>        once revoke one coin from em.
>
> --
> Trigon
>


Caller's Arguments:

The relevant precedent is CFJ 3744 where it said that it was up to the
specific speech act as to whether a proposal that was submitted with an
invalid AI failed entirely or defaulted to 1.0 AI. The speech in that case
was found clear, but the speech in this case is very different (and much
closer to the default way that most people create proposals). Per CFJ 3744,
if this message _really_ means ""I create a proposal with

the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" then the
proposal would entirely fail, whereas it would succeed with AI=1 if
the message _really_ means ""I

create a proposal with the following text. I optionally specify an AI. I
optionally specify a Title. I optionally specify coauthors"

What's the answer to which speech action the author really means here?
I have no idea, which is why I left the question open in CFJ 3744. It
is up to the judge to decide, I suppose.

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

Judge Jason's Arguments:

CFJ 3744 held that, if a player does the equivalent of writing the
optional specifications of a proposal as separate speech acts when
creating it, any invalid optional specifications revert to the default
value. It also held that, if the speech act of creating the proposal is
phrased as an single action and is constrained enough, the creation
succeeds or fails atomically. I do not believe this is the conclusion I
would have reached, but I am nevertheless bound by precedent.

Rule 2350 enables creating proposals "by announcement". According to
Rule 478, this means a player CAN perform it "by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it".

In eir message, Trigon appears to "clearly specify" the action of
creating a proposal with title "Agora plays table tennis", AI 0.1, no
coauthors, and the provided text. It also appears that e has specified
only a single action (creating a proposal), rather than the multiple
actions required by CFJ 3744 to permit non-atomic specifications (I
create a proposal, I specify an attribute, I specify another attribute).
Given that the AI was invalid, and the creation was phrased as a single
act, under CFJ 3744, Trigon did not create a proposal in eir message. I
find FALSE.

More generally, I find that any shorthand in which the creation of the
proposal is phrased as a single action (even those including shorthand)
qualifies as atomic under CFJ 3744, i.e. that speech actions creating
optional specifications must be made explicit in order to be non-atomic.

This means that all of the following are atomic proposal creations:

  * "I create/submit/etc. the following proposal: [shorthand]"

  * "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with the following attributes:
    [shorthand]"

  * "I create/submit/etc. a proposal with title 'A creative title', AI
    0, and text 'Do something.'"

  * "H. Promotor, I do hereby submit unto you this most honorable
    proposal, with the hopes that it be adopted: [shorthand]"


Judge Jason's Evidence:

Rule 2350/12 [Excerpt]:

>       A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
>       other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
>       specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
>       attributes:
>       
>       * An associated title.
>       
>       * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the
>         author).
>       
>       * An adoption index.
>       
>       * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its
>         creation.


Rule 478/38 [Excerpt]:

>       Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
>       announcement", that person performs that action by unambiguously
>       and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>       it.

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