Index ← 3897 CFJ 3898 3899 → text
===============================  CFJ 3898  ===============================

      The time at which an intent to do something without objection
      becomes resolvable is a deadline.

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

Caller:                        Jason
Barred:                        G.

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Jason:                                  03 Feb 2021 02:25:25
Assigned to Murphy:                               03 Feb 2021 17:31:34
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                           06 Feb 2021 23:08:19

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

Caller's Arguments:

On 2/2/21 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> The following Emergency Regulation, The First Regulation of G.ravity,
> is enacted:
>
>   A pausable intent is any announcement of intent for performing a
>   dependent action either without N objections, with N Agoran consent,
>   with notice, or with T notice.
>
>   G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to extend the prior
>   deadline, provided for in Rule 2595(3), for performing a dependent
>   action based on a specified pausable intent (i.e. change the
>   time between intent announcement and the enabling of the
>   performance of the specified dependent action), to 14 days.

That time does not seem to fit the natural language meaning of the word
"deadline".

Definition from Google: "the latest time or date by which something
should be completed."

Definition from Merriam-Webster online: "a date or time before which
something must be done"

Definition from Dictionary.com: "the time by which something must be
finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something" or "a
line or limit that must not be passed."

In all of these definitions, something must become impossible - either
an action or the fulfillment of an obligation. For an intent resolution,
nothing becomes DISABLED or ILLEGAL when the intent becomes resolvable -
instead something becomes ENABLED. A close analogy seems to be the start
of a voting period - I would not say that the start is a deadline, only
the end.

A counterargument could be that the time when it becomes resolvable is
the deadline for people to get objections in while they can be sure they
can be heard. This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The start of the resolution period also does not fulfill any of the
criteria specifically listed in the rule - no action must be done before
the resolution period for it to be "valid" - objections are just as
valid after the intent is resolvable (when it will still have effect),
or even after it is resolved (when it is still an objection, and will
prevent repeated resolutions), nor is there generally any obligation for
something to be done before an intent becomes resolvable.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2614/5 (Power=3.01)
Eclipse Light [Excerpt]

        - Extend any deadline provided for by any instrument other than
          this rule, including a deadline for an obligation to be met,
          or deadline prior to which an action must be performed in
          order to be valid, such as the end of voting period. Such an
          extension CANNOT cause the total time period, such as the
          time from when an obligation was created to the deadline or
          the whole of a voting period, to be more than double its
          original length.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On 2/2/2021 6:25 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
> 2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
> instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
> anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
> POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
> the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The language is actually quite straightforward and in keeping with the
common definition of deadline.  Rule 2614 says "any deadline" and provides
the example of "a deadline for an obligation to be met".  While this is
just an example in the rule, that fact is that a player is obliged to
wait, as provided by R2595, 4 days between intent and successfully
performing objection-based dependent actions.

It is clear that the deadline itself is not provided by R2614.  You can't
read R2614 and determine that there is four days between when an intent is
announced and when it becomes possible to execute the action, so it's not
provided there.  Instead, Rule 2595, another rule, directly provides a
deadline of 4 days.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Jason:

Don't we usually define "obligation" to be about LEGALITY not
POSSIBILITY? R2614 says "deadline prior to which an action must be
performed in order to be valid" separately from "deadline for an
obligation to be met"; the former seems to be about LEGALITY and the
latter about POSSIBILITY.

Even if there is an "obligation" to be met before the intent resolution
can happen, I don't think it makes sense to call it a deadline. If
someone attempted to resolve an intent early, I think it would be really
weird to say they "didn't meet the deadline". This is supported by
R2614's later clarification which says "prior to which an action must be
performed" -  which way the CANNOT/CAN switches as time progresses matters.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

I find that the only sensible interpretations of "deadline" are

   a) a time limit after which doing X is too late to satisfy a SHALL

   b) a time limit after which doing X is too late to be POSSIBLE

which are respectively addressed by the examples listed in R2614. The
attempted use cases here are

   c) a time limit before which doing X is too early to be POSSIBLE

   d) a soft time limit after which doing X may be too late to be
      effective, based on whether someone else did Y in between

both of which, while equally sensible concepts, including them in the
definition of "deadline" would be too much of a stretch. FALSE.

Furthermore, even if "deadline" was interpreted more broadly to include
c) and/or d), note that 14 days is more than double the original period
of 4 days, so R2614 would generally prevent such extensions to dependent
actions. The possible exception is dependent actions allowed by R2614
itself, which depends on how "provided for" is interpreted: does that
mean R2614 (which creates the deadline), R2595 (which assigns that
deadline a value), or a combination of both? I believe that it means or
at least includes R2614, which was presumably Alexis's intent when e
wrote the original version of the rule.

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