=============================== CFJ 3858 ===============================
An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on
Called by Jason: 24 Jun 2020 01:58:23
Assigned to grok: 25 Jun 2020 22:24:01
Judged TRUE by grok: 28 Jun 2020 01:53:54
Rule 2124/26 [Excerpt]:
> The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
> an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
> the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
> if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
Dictionary definition of "define":
What it means for an action to "depend on objections" is not defined in
the rules. This means that it has its common language meaning. The word
at issue is "depend". Merriam-Webster  defines "depend" as an
intransitive verb meaning:
1. to be determined, based, or contingent
2. to be pending or undecided
3. a. to place reliance or trust
b. to be dependent especially for financial support
4. to hang down
I believe definition 1 here makes the most sense in context. I see two
ways to interpret an action "depending on objections" - it either must
require objects to be performable, or it must be affected by objections.
The former makes no sense - no dependent action requires objections in
order to be actionable, which would mean the clause has no effect. This
leaves the second reading - the action "depends on objections" if
objections affect whether it can be performed.
An action to be performed with 7 days notice is affected by the presence
or absence of objections. In particular, it is affected by the presence
of an objection from the Speaker, who can veto an action for 48 hours by
objecting. This is consistent with a common language reading - the
effectiveness of an action to be performed with 7 days action is, in
part, "determined" by, "based" on, or "contingent" upon, the presence or
absence of an objection. Because of this, I argue that an action to be
performed with 7 days notice "depends on objections" and argue for TRUE.
Gratuitous Arguments by R. Lee:
> This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
> called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
> They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
> passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
> conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a
Response to R. Lee from Jason
> Counterpoint: even with T notice depends on the absence of objections
> from a specific person - the Speaker, so it is still dependent on the
> state of objections to the intent in general.
Gratuitous Arguments by nch:
Reposting the relevant clause with my Gratuitous for readability:
The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
"X depends on Y" reads to me as "Y is important to the result of X".
There's at least one possible objection, that of the speaker, that is
important to the result of any dependent action intent. I think it's
pretty clear that all dependent action intents depend on the objection
of the speaker.
The only reasonable counterargument I see is that the relevant clause is
simply not intended to apply here. You could argue that "on objections"
refers to objections in general, as opposed to any particular objections
(like the Speaker's). However, if we look at the original purpose of the
clause, that seems unlikely.
In May 2009 two players performed a scam by objecting to an intent they
wanted to pass - the objections tricked other players into assuming it
would fail - and then withdrawing their objections last minute to
resolve it . A patch was quickly introduced that added the first
version of this text, which impressively has lasted since then .
So the purpose of the clause is to make it where a person can't scam by
doing a 'faux' objection. While "with notice" and the Speaker's veto
didn't exist at the time, the sensible interpretation with these newer
mechanics is that the Speaker also shouldn't be able to do faux objections.
Thus, an in-context reading suggests the clause should apply to anything
anyone can object to. I submit that H. Judge Grok should find this CFJ TRUE.
Judge grok's Arguments:
I had a substantially larger, textual decision written, but as I
continue to review the case I find myself more compelled by the common
definition gratuitous arguments written even if they don't necessarily
match the noun forms used in the text.
Ultimately, I take the common definitions as a logical test. R2124
Paragraph 7 asks a question: "Does this action depend on objections?"
Paragraph 8 tells us "We must check for objections because the
Speaker's objection would mean Agora is Not Satisfied." Logically,
this means there is a dependency. Even though the Speaker can only
ever be one person, and the Speaker can only ever submit one
objection, and any other objection would be untracked, INEFFECTIVE,
and IRRELEVANT, we only need one EFFECTIVE objection for the
determination of objections to be a prior question to Agoran
Therefore, I find the statement TRUE.
(note: A key implication of this decision is that in this
interpretation, every Dependent Action depends on objections.)