=============================== CFJ 3838 ===============================
Grok transferred one coin to me in the above quoted message.
Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Called by nch: 31 May 2020 20:04:05
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: 31 May 2020 20:33:14
Judged TRUE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: 13 Jun 2020 16:52:52
On 5/31/2020 12:37 PM, grok wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2020, 2:35 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 5/31/2020 12:29 PM, nch wrote:
>>> On Sunday, May 31, 2020 2:06:51 PM CDT Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>> The below CFJ is 3837. I assign it to grok.
>>>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3837
>>>> =============================== CFJ 3837
>>>> Falsifian owns at least one blot if and only if English Wikipedia
>>>> has an article titled "Sponge".
>>> Gratuitous: This CFJ should be found FALSE because the rules do not
>> define a
>>> biconditional relationship between these facts, regardless of whether
>>> individual fact is TRUE or FALSE.
>> Gratuitous: A judgement of IRRELEVANT is also appropriate - to evaluate
>> this, we are required to consider a world in which a common subject like
>> "sponge" is not in Wikipedia. A world like this might be strange in other
>> ways. This is, literally and directly, an "overly hypothetical
>> extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually
>> exist" as defined for IRRELEVANT in R591.
> I transfer 1 shiny to g
Shinies aren't an asset currently defined by rules or contracts. But
they served a similar purpose to coins in recent history. Additionally, I
don't see any other asset or action this could reasonably be interpreted as.
Thus, I think it's reasonable to interpret 'shiny' as a synonym for 'coins'.
Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus's Arguments:
First of all, I think I should address a potential conflict of
interest with respect to CFJ 3831, that I am the recipient of the
karma in Murphy's message. I don't believe this represents a conflict
of interest because Murphy has subsequently acted to ensure that I
will receive this karma once and only once regardless of whether this
is found to have been effective. With regards to this, I also note
that the Honorable Arbitor did not view this as a conflict of interest
for the purposes of assignment and I was not barred from being the
judge by the caller, Aris, so others also seem to view this conflict
of interest as nonexistent. Now, let's get to the fun part!
Given the nature of these CFJs, I'm going to separately establish the
facts of each situation then make some general findings of law about
both. Finally, I will combine these to make the judgements on each.
In CFJ 3831, Murphy published a message, labelled as a "Notice of
Honor", purporting to increase the "kudos" count of one player and
decrease that of another player. The question before the court is
whether the use of the word "kudo" causes the "Notice of Honor" to be
In CFJ 3838, Grok transferred one "shiny" to G. The question before
the court is whether "shiny" should be interpreted as "coin".
In looking at how to interpret these words, we must determine some
general guidelines for interpreting the meaning of words. Rule 217
gives us a clear hierarchy for interpretation where definitions in the
rules take priority, and "game custom, common sense, past judgements,
and consideration of the best interests of the game" follow. In CFJ
1261, the Court held that where codes or other nonstandard systems of
communication create ambiguity, the messages using them fail.
Extending this, we could conclude that the use of intentionally
nonstandard language in a manner that creates ambiguity is
INEFFECTIVE. In CFJ 1500, the Court found that words should be
interpreted by their common language definition after a definition in
the rules has been overturned. The Court presently believes that this
is somewhat misguided: while the common language definition should be
used in any interpretation, the past definition in the rules and its
historical usage within Agora should also be looked at, where
reasonable, as part of the game custom criterion. In CFJ 1657, the
Court found that a term only assumes the special rule-defined meanings
it may have when strictly used in the form proscribed by the rules. In
CFJ 1885, the Court found that a criterion for analyzing the
effectiveness of messages should be the ability of a receiver to
understand. This criterion is also found in the jurisprudence around
foreign language use and message timing.
Synthesizing these precedents, we believe that the meaning of terms,
when not defined in the rules, should be interpreted according to
three sources of evidence:
1. Common-language definitions
2. Historical definitions and customary usage within the game
3. Responses to the message, as a proxy for analyzing the ability of
recipients to understand it.
This standard will allow us to communicate without unnecessary
restrictions or prescriptions arising simply from the use of specific
terms for ideas within the ruleset; as a result, this standard is in
the best interests of a game premised upon free communication and
artful language use.
Applying this standard to the case of CFJ 3831, we find that the
common language definition supports the effectiveness of the message,
as described by the Honorable Amicus Curiae G; that the term held a
similar meaning under a previous legal framework, according to the
Honorable Judge Alexis; and that the term was understood as sharing
the meaning of "karma" by the Honorable Caller Aris because e would
not have called such a CFJ if e did not reasonably believe that it
could be interpreted in this way. As a result, all the sources of
evidence suggest that the message was EFFECTIVE, and I assign a
judgement of TRUE to CFJ 3831.
Turning to CFJ 3838, we find that the common language definition does
not support the effectiveness of the message, given that "shiny" is
not generally understood to be a currency; that the term had a
directly analogous meaning in a previous legal framework, repealed by
Proposals 8004 and 8014, which, being recent, are likely in the memory
of a significant number of players; and that the term was generally
understood as intended to refer to a "coin" based off of the treatment
of the message by the Honorable Treasuror and the Honorable Caller.
As a result, the sources of evidence are divided on whether to find
this message to be EFFECTIVE, but given that Rule 2578 implies a broad
presumption of effectiveness in ambiguous transfers of currency, the
scales are tipped in favoring of finding that the message was
EFFECTIVE; therefore, I assign a judgement of TRUE to CFJ 3838.