Index ← 3854 CFJ 3855 3856 → text
===============================  CFJ 3855  ===============================

      With the above message, Trigon's coin balance was decreased by 20.


Caller:                        Jason

Judge:                         R. Lee
Judgement:                     FALSE



Called by Jason:                                  22 Jun 2020 03:15:35
Assigned to R. Lee:                               22 Jun 2020 14:47:54
Judged FALSE by R. Lee:                           23 Jun 2020 01:31:06


Caller's Evidence:

On 6/21/20 10:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Construe this message as extending Trigon's latest public message.
> I, Trigon, transfer 20 coins to Jason.

The above message: [0].


The real Trigon's last public message [1] had this (non-quoted) text:

> I approve this signature suggestion, transferring 3 coins to myself.
> Have fun executing arbitrary text!
> -- 
> Trigon
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this


Caller's Arguments:

Precedent in CFJ 1451 found that multiple physical messages can be
construed as a single message for the purpose of the rules. That was
clearly the intent here (esp. since Trigon said "Have fun executing
arbitrary text!").

As Trigon points out, my message's subject might be more properly "BUS:
TRIGON" rather than "TRIGON".

Have fun, your honor!


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

If that point about "BUS:" matters, see CFJ 3459:


Judge R. Lee's Arguments:

Trigon included a sentence in a message to the public forum that said as
follows "Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this".
Jason sent a message purporting to be from Trigon, transferring 20 coins
from Trigon to Jason. Does this action work, either because it is the same
message as Trigon's message, or because Trigon clearly agreed with Jason
that e could transfer the 20 coins? I find that it doesn't.

First of all, just because Trigon tells others to "Construe Jason's extending this", doesn't mean that Jason's message and
Trigon's message actually constitute the same message. This is classic
ISIDTID. Yes, two email messages can constitute the same Agoran message if
they are "sequentially ordered by date and were very closely spaced in
time." under CFJ 1451. The clear distinguishing factor: CFJ 1451's messages
were all written by the same person. I find no authority whatsoever under
the current rules that two email messages written and sent by different
people should ever be construed as the same message. Just because Jason and
Trigon both _want_ me to construe the messages as the same changes nothing.
You can't make an agreement to change the rules or the way that outside
parties interpret and apply the rules. If you need common meaning, a
message is defined as (in CFJ 1481) "A usually short communication
transmitted by words, signals, or other means from one person, station, or
group to another.". This message simply isn't from one person or group.

This doesn't resolve the case. If Trigon agreed to allow Jason to act on
Trigon's behalf to transfer the coins, that would be fine. "Allowing a
person to act on behalf of another person is secured at power 2.0."
Therefore specific Rules mechanisms must allow someone to act on behalf.
These are currently zombies and promises (which clearly don't apply here)
and contracts. A contract is "an agreement among themselves with the
intention that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules.". But
this particular direction in Trigon's message wasn't phrased as an
agreement between Trigon and Jason, it was phrased as an (unenforceable and
incorrect) instruction to outside interpreters. Therefore, Trigon never
agreed in the form of a contract to have Jason act on eir behalf to do

I judge this CFJ FALSE. Trigon and Jason never agreed to a contract
allowing acting on behalf, and Jason's message was clearly a different
message to Trigon's.