Index ← 3945 CFJ 3946 3947 → text
===============================  CFJ 3946  ===============================

      secretsnail deputized to respond to at least one petition in the
      below message.

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

Caller:                        G.
Barred:                        secretsnail

Judge:                         ais523
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     03 Feb 2022 20:02:59
Assigned to ais523:                               07 Feb 2022 21:04:00
Judged FALSE by ais523:                           08 Feb 2022 00:13:00

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

Caller's Evidence:

On 2/3/2022 11:15 AM, Mark Wieland via agora-official wrote:
> I resign as arbitor.
>
> I temporarily deputize as arbitor to grant G. 5 boatloads of coins for a timely judgment in CFJ 3942.
>
> I award myself cyan glitter.
>
> I deputize (not temporarily) as arbitor to grant Jason 5 boatloads of coins for a timely judgment in CFJ 3944.
>
> I award myself cyan glitter.
>
> I do the following actions if they all succeed:
> {
>
> I petition the arbitor to transfer me a coin.
>
> I resign as arbitor.
>
> I temporarily deputize as arbitor to respond to the petition to transfer secretsnail a coin with "no". (That's silly, why would I do that?)
>
> I award myself cyan glitter.
>
> I petition the arbitor to transfer me 2 coins.
>
> I resign as arbitor.
>
> I temporarily deputize as arbitor to respond to the petition to transfer secretsnail 2 coins with "no".
>
> I award myself cyan glitter.
>
> I petition the arbitor to transfer me 3 coins.
>
> I resign as arbitor.
>
> I deputize (not temporarily) as arbitor to respond to the petition to transfer secretsnail 3 coins with "no". (That's way too many coins, bucko.)
>
> I award myself cyan glitter.
>
> }


Caller's Arguments:

Some Socratic dialog for Gratuitous Arguments:

Secretsnail:
also again i'm not sure if the deputizations for the petitions work anyways

G:
not sure why it wouldn't

Secretsnail:
"A player CAN, by announcement, petition a specified officer to
      take a specified action; the officer SHALL publicly respond to
      the petition in a timely fashion."

G:
whenever a SHALL arises and an office is vacant, deputisation works I think?

Jason:
yep

Secretsnail:
      "An officer is
      the holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of
      that office."
it almost seems like it wouldn't work because it would be referring to
secretsnail who doesn't have to be in office to respond

G:
ah - we have precedents that duties transfer with office if that's what
you mean?  There was a recent case with respect to the PM on that
there was a debate about whether I was PM.  A petition was addressed to
"Possibly PM G."  It was found to be a petition to G. as a person (which
has no legal standing) but not a petition to the PM that could be
deputised for.

Secretsnail:
So someone could petition a vacant office?

G:
I think so?  But good point the question hasn't been asked exactly that
way, maybe not

Jason:
I'd argue no
has to be "specified officer", vacant office has no officer to petition
unless...
I petition Arbitor (vacant) to do blah...

G:
counterpoint:  "submitting a Cantus Cygneus to the registrar" works when
there's no registrar (pretty sure that's a cfj)

Jason:
[CFJ2953]

Jason:
oh wow, that's [CFJ2953 judgement] a moderately concerning reading

G:
I'd sorta have a safer take.  e.g. it's platonically possible to do it as
this cfj says, but doing it so it's a preponderance of evidence that Agora
would accept that it happened requires something more than /dev/null (e.g.
at least something forwarded to public)
but it does make it pretty clear that a public message to a vacant office
is a submission to an officer?  (by that old precedent anyway)

Jason:
a distinction might be able to be drawn between "to the Registrar" and
"petition a specified officer"
I'm not saying I'm drawing that distinction, just that it might be able to
be drawn

Secretsnail:
i think that'd be a stretch
"the arbitor" sounds like a specified officer

Jason:
I think the fact that the office of Registrar is named specifically might
matter to a judge
R217 and whatnot

G:
it sounds like that in common langauge, but in organizational-speak (e.g.
in a parliament) legal procedures may be addressed to "an officer" and it
means "the office/institution"

Jason:
hmm

Cuddlybanana:
hmmm legal brain versus coding brain

G:
to be clear I could see this one going either way, as that's definitely a
"cultural/custom" usage

Secretsnail:
it's a good thing i petitioned a held office instead of a vacant one

G:
the petition caused a segmentation fault officer-pointer is null, Agora
terminated

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

There are a number of ways in which secretsnail might have failed to
deputise to respond to a petition in the message in question, and thus
a number of issues in the CFJ:

 * Is it possible to submit a petition to a vacant office?
 * Is it possible to resign an office while it has obligations, then
   deputise to fulfil them?
 * Is an "I do the following actions if they all succeed" conditional
   something that is capable of working in the case where there's legal
   uncertainty about whether the actions succeed or not?
 * In the list of actions which was actually given, was it actually
   possible for all of them to succeed?

For the CFJ to be TRUE, all these points would have to be TRUE.
However, at least the fourth is FALSE, as can be seen by the edited-
down version of the message in question that I posted above:
secretsnail attempted to resign Arbitor twice without performing an
action which would give em the office in between, and thus it's not
possible for the second resignation to succeed (Rule 1006 requires a
player to hold an elected office to be able to resign it). As a
consequence, the "I do the following actions if they all succeed"
conditional can be resolved without any extraordinary effort: it's
clear that the actions can't *all* succeed and thus none of them were
attempted (in particular, because the attempt to resign couldn't
succeed, the attempt to deputize to respond to a petition never
happened and thus it doesn't matter whether or not it would have
worked). This is sufficient to be able to find the CFJ FALSE.

Going over the other points:
 * CFJ 3916 found that it was indeed possible to submit a petition to a
   vacant office, so long as the action was clearly specified as
   petitioning an office rather than a person. (Note, however, that
   that CFJ received enough support to be appealed – it's just that
   nobody actually resolved the dependent action to appeal it. So it's
   less good as a precedent than usual.) This is also consistent with
   CFJ 2953, which covers the same topic. (Note, however, that CFJ 2953
   is based on two sets of arguments, one of which is a misreading of
   CFJ 1594's final verdict after its appeal, and the other of which
   directly contradicts CFJ 1702. So it's also less good as a precedent
   than usual.)
 * Resigning an office and then deputising to fulfil a pending
   obligations that it had is clearly POSSIBLE via rule 2160. (I can
   see an outside possibility that it might be ILLEGAL, but suspect
   that it isn't – even if it is, though, it doesn't prevent it
   working.)
 * Whether or not conditionals of that level of complexity can work at
   all is probably the most interesting part of this CFJ, but
   fortunately I don't have to answer it. This would be an interesting
   area to look at if something similar happens again, though.


Judge ais523's Evidence:

Archive links to the past CFJs mentioned in the arguments:
3916: 
2953: 
1594: 
1702: 

Excerpt from rule 1006/45:
      The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,
      causing it to become vacant.

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