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

      grok became a player on saturday, february 5.

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

Caller:                        grok

Judge:                         secretsnail
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by grok:                                   23 Feb 2022 21:31:00
Assigned to secretsnail:                          24 Feb 2022 00:59:00
Judged FALSE by secretsnail:                      24 Feb 2022 00:59:00

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

Caller's Arguments:

grok published intent to ratify a document on friday, january 28. grok's
argument was that since e was deregistered  due to inactivity, grok never
revoked eir consent to be bound by the rules of agora. the ruling in CFJ 3943
determined that intending to ratify a document does not require playerhood,
since intents can be withdrawn at any time.

grok published a message to business saying "i deregister" during that time.
CFJ 3945 found this action was ineffective.

on february 5, grok resolved the agoran decision to ratify eir document.
although the document was not ratified, grok resolved the intent. this
satisfies CFJ 3943's concern about the ambiguity of intent, and since eir
deregistration attempt was ineffective, grok should be a player.

as a preempt--there may be an argument that publishing a message claiming to
deregister revokes one's consent to the rules, even if it is ineffective. i
would argue that since grok resolved eir intent and called the original CFJ,
eir "deregistration" message is more accurately Faking since e knew it would
be ineffective, and e should receive discipline from the referee after eir
playerhood is confirmed.

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

Judge secretsnail's Arguments:

The person called grok has called this cfj, and in order to determine if e
has registered, we should consider all things e has done since being
deregistered. The list of actions in order follows:

 * grok was deregistered
 * grok much later published a public message with text "grok was always a
player" at 17:04:46 UTC on Friday, January 28th
 * grok quickly after tried to amend that text ("action") to read "RWO:
grok was always a player"
 * grok called CFJ 3943: "grok is a player" and gave a gratuitous argument
 * grok attempted to vote on proposals 8635, 8636, and 8637. (FOR, PRESENT,
PRESENT)
 * grok submitted a Claim of Error on the Registar's weekly report, saying
"grok is a player"
 * grok replies to the statement that their votes on the above proposals
didn't work with "If CFJ 3943 is TRUE, then I was a player two hours before
the Agoran decisions on adopting these proposals were initiated."
 * On Tuesday, February 1st, upon being told CFJ 3943 was judged false,
grok replied "oh cool   i deregister"
 * On Sunday, February 6th, they replied to their earlier message including
"RWO" with "I resolve this Agoran decision. With G's objection, the
document is not ratified."

Given there were no actions taken or public messages sent by or about grok
on February 5th, it is trivial to conclude grok did not register on
February 5th, earning this CFJ its judgement of FALSE.

BUT, given the CFJ has (seemingly) mistakenly been called for the wrong
day, we shall continue our analysis. Did grok register on February 6th? A
full analysis of each message e sent follows:

- The first of nine actions: grok was deregistered

grok was a player for at least a year, though not all at once. E has
voluntarily deregistered twice, both times relatively shortly after
registering. Their last deregistration, however, was on Saturday, 01 May
2021 22:43:36 UTC by Aris, without 3 objections. The deregistration appears
very clean: grok was set to inactive, and then deregistered, because they
had not sent any messages in a long time, all with proper authorization
according to the rules, which grok agreed to. As grok has not indicated
otherwise and the rules do not provide a way to unagree, it seems that grok
still agrees to abide by the rules.

- The second: grok sent a public message with text "grok was always a
player"

What does this statement mean? "Was always" is a very powerful set of
words. It seems to imply that at all points before this message was sent,
grok had the status of "player", which is untrue, for all players. Every
player was at one point not a player, until they registered, which seems to
be relevant here. Assuming grok meant to not lie, this could instead mean
"grok was always a player since eir last registration" which may match what
grok believes, but the fact grok later (seemingly) tried to ratify this
statement implies it was up for some debate, along with the needing to send
the message at all. Why did grok say this? It seems to be to call attention
to grok's status as either player or not.

Does this message indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
that grok intended to become a player at that time?

No, considering this message alone. It is just a statement that may be true
or false, that does not indicate any intents. There is no "I do" or "I
intend to", only an indication of what grok may have thought e was, which,
if anything, would mean e did not have to register if e was already a
player.

BUT, can we consider other messages along with this one, specifically the
one trying to amend this message?

No, not yet. It is unreasonable to let future messages affect current
messages, especially considering ambiguity about which messages affect or
rely on others instead of standing alone. If we were to let the meanings of
past messages be affected retroactively, retroactive registrations could
probably break the gamestate. Not to mention, "an unregistered person CAN
register by publishing a message", not multiple messages. Although, given
"message" isn't defined by the ruleset, it could hypothetically be
contained by multiple public messages, as a single "message" could be
communicated over multiple emails. CFJ 3776 tells us that future messages
cannot retroactively change the meaning of a past message. Thus we shall
consider the possibility, for the purposes of registering, but only
non-retroactively.

- The third: grok tried to amend the previous message to read "RWO: grok is
always a player"

It is worth nothing that this message was sent a bit less than 5 minutes
after the previous one. This amendment attempt failed, by current
precedent. But the intent was still reasonably clear here: grok wanted to
amend a message to read as something else, an intent which may have some
bearing on the next question. Was an action tabled? No.

      A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an
      intent (syn. "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously
      and without obfuscation specifying the action, the method
      (including non- default parameter values), and optionally,
      conditions.

"By announcement" means "specifying the action and setting forth intent to
perform that action by sending [a public] message, doing both clearly and
unambiguously." Given the split nature of this "message" into a statement
and a tried amendment to an action, the failure of the amendment, and
ambiguity of whether grok actually wanted this multi-part series to
succeed, as clearly they could have just included the RWO in their original
message, this action utterly failed to be tabled. It was unclear and
ambiguous which email the RWO was meant to be or actually intended in,
obfuscated by the splitting into multiple emails, the first of which
indicated no connection to the second, and inconspicuous, as the email did
not purport to intend anything. That being said:

Does this message indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
that grok intended to become a player at that time?

No, considering the message alone. It rather ambiguously makes an attempt
at an amendment, or even a RWO, which in either case wouldn't lead grok
becoming a player at that time. If e wanted to do that, e could have just
said e registered. At the very best, this message is an ambiguous and
unclear intent to become a player later, because nothing about becoming a
player was stated, only weakly implied by the attempt at ratification,
which e may or may not have known would fail. The same holds considering
the previous message, as it only serves as something that grok may want to
be amended or ratified. Now that we're considering previous messages, it's
worth noting that public messages from grok far in the past before this
case should be discounted as it would be unreasonable effort to include
those in interpreting the meaning of recent messages.

- The fourth: grok called CFJ 3943: "grok is a player" and gave a
gratuitous argument

The message in question reads:

records saved

CFJ: grok is a player


gratuitous arg: ratifying a public document is a reserved action that
can only be done by players. grok was automatically deregistered by
inactivity and never revoked eir consent from agora. because grok's
consent has been given and has not been revoked, and e attempted to
take a game action, e must be registered at the time e attempted this
action. therefore, grok registered at 17:05 utc on friday, january 28.

No ambiguity here: grok called this cfj and published an argument to uphold
the relevant statement. E also acknowledged that the "records [were] saved"
by G.'s objection of their earlier non-intent, implying they acknowledge it
could have been a mess if ratified, which may be important. Though there
are a few strange things: grok registered at 17:04:46 UTC on Friday,
January 28th, not at 17:05. This renders the provided argument invalid, but
is (seemingly) likely by accident. The actual arguments, however, are more
purposeful. It tries to connect the facts grok gave eir consent to Agora
and attempted to take a game action to an unrelated conclusion, that e must
be registered at the time e attempted that action; it gives no go-between,
no reason for this argument to logically follow. Could grok have
purposefully constructed a bad argument? Does it matter?

Does this message indicate reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously
that grok intended to become a player at that time?

"Yeah sure why not, they called a cfj which could make them a player,
that's clear enough" is what I thought up as a possible reason upon first
considering this question. We must pay careful attention to the word
"could". grok may not have intended this cfj to be judged true. The only
potential indication is the gratuitous arg: it may be reasonable to assume
that argument for grok being a player could imply e wanted the cfj to make
em a player, but even that is ambiguous given the argument's typo that
makes it invalid, not to mention grok's surrounding obfuscating messages
and the potential for faking. Precedent leans us further towards saying no
because it is ambiguous, as CFJ 2979 gives some precedent on this: "By
initiating a CFJ into the matter, [e] has explicitly indicated that the
statement's veracity is in doubt, creating ambiguity." This same reasoning
can apply to the gratuitous argument as well, especially if we consider it
a sort of extension of calling the cfj. CFJ 3148 and CFJ 3130 find the same
to be true:  "Initiating a CFJ on one's own playerhood does not reasonably
unambiguously indicate intent to become a player." So, NO.

BUT, can we consider the previous messages when evaluating this one for
clear and unambiguous intent to become a player?

YES, and we should by precedent. CFJ 3033 upheld previous judgements that
messages can be affected by previous messages, and that a message can be
composed of multiple emails, though only under certain circumstances. The
upheld judgement from CFJ 1451 is about very clearly linked messages, by
number, and CFJ 3033 is about a message clearly meant to modify a future
message. As CFJ 1451 says: "Messages that are more complex or less clear
will require testing by CFJ". It seems reasonable that connection between
messages must be reasonably clear, and in fact precedent about what it
means to "publish" something suggests it should most definitely be clearly
marked as a single message, which is relevant as you must "publish a
message" in order to register. Considering all previous messages and this
one, it is NOT clear, in fact exceedingly ambiguous, that they are all part
of the same grand message that grok intends to register. The only
connections between messages are a failed attempt at amendment to one by
another, which does not purport to be part of a larger message, and then
the argument given by grok using the attempt at ratification, which had an
ambiguous location. It may be more reasonable to connect the messages if
they referred to future messages instead of past ones, or were more clearly
meant to be read together in a specified order, but neither of those things
or anything close to them happened.

So NO, grok did not register by sending this message.

- The fifth: grok attempted to vote on proposals 8635, 8636, and 8637.
(FOR, PRESENT, PRESENT)

By precedent, this message alone does not count as a registration. But
considering other messages, it is not clearly connected as it has no
mention of previous messages and no previous messages mention it. So grok
does not register here.

- The sixth: grok submitted a Claim of Error on the Registar's weekly
report, saying "grok is a player"

This is analogous to the calling of CFJ 3943, which e does refer to as
evidence in this message, further cementing the sameness. This could also
be equated with grok's statement of "grok was always a player" in that it
just states something e may believe, just this time in a new format. Once
again, if e believed it, there would be no need to register, making this
ambiguous. There are no clear connections to previous messages besides the
mentioned cfj which is ambiguous, and again no registration.

- The seventh: grok replies to the statement that their votes on the above
proposals didn't work with "If CFJ 3943 is TRUE, then I was a player two
hours before the Agoran decisions on adopting these proposals were
initiated."

This one is fairly obvious. It makes a very clearly true statement,
relating to the cfj and the previous votes. This alone does nothing else,
though, as it is merely a logical statement about player status and vote
effectiveness, and does not purport to edit player status. This with other
messages, is not clearly connected, except to the votes in the earlier
message, which don't contribute any clear intent to register in combination
with this message, and to the cfj, which is itself ambiguous. This is an
extension of both the CFJ calling and the votes, but does not clearly
convey a singular message of intent of registration, as both messages it
are extending do not, and their combination is merely the logical statement
grok gives. This, the clearest of grok's recent messages, does not clearly
register.

- The eighth: On Tuesday, February 1st, upon being told CFJ 3943 was judged
false, grok replied "oh cool   i deregister"

In this message, grok said e did an action when e obviously did not. The
judgement of CFJ 3943 declared em not a player, yet e said e deregistered
anyways. Does this imply intent to register, though? An honestly
interesting question, as e was obviously faking here. Could that imply an
intent to actually do the opposite of what e said, and instead register,
since deregistering would obviously not work? Unfortunately not, as such a
convolution would be obfuscation and make the intent unclear.

How is this connected to other messages? Not in any clearly marked way, so
no registrations here, but it is worth noting the "oh cool" implies the
judgement of FALSE on CFJ 3943 was expected, supporting theories of wanting
the CFJ judged false, contributing to the narrative grok did not intend to
register. Or it could just mean e thought it was cool e the case had been
judged at all. In any case, no registration.

- The ninth and final: On Sunday, February 6th, they replied to their
earlier message including "RWO" with "I resolve this Agoran decision. With
G's objection, the document is not ratified."

On its own, there is obviously no registration here. It's an attempt to
take a game action, maybe, but by precedent that isn't enough to register.
In connection with other messages, however, it is clear what is being done:
grok attempts to resolve the earlier intent that could make grok be a
player, but does so in such a fashion that would actually not ratify
anything. This attempted action as whole explicitly doesn't make grok a
player, so it cannot be seen as an attempt to become a player. The
ambiguity of calling this RWO an "agoran decision" also makes this an easy
call, no clear intent to ratify, and no intent to become a player.

Just to be thorough, let's look at grok's other two actions. The first was
another attempt at voting, which again by precedent, and even considering
other messages which did not clearly link to this one, has no registration.

grok called this cfj, COE'd twice (which can be combined with calling the
cfj as before), and provided gratuitous arguments, more gratuitous than
before. Again a potential typo in the calling of the cfj mildly obfuscates
things, but let us consider the argument one in good faith. Or can we do
that? considering previous messages, as we ought to do, there is some doubt
as to what grok ever intends. E even very clearly tried to do something e
could not do when e attempted to deregister, and e even calls that attempt
faking in this message. Again we point to the precedent: cfjs by their very
nature are ambiguous, with few exceptions. The more extensive argument may
be indicative of consent, and other messages may connect to this one as to
make this whole ordeal a message from grok that e intended to be a player,
but the links between all the messages are murky, only sort of reinforced
by the gratuitous arguments. luckily, grok included in this message, "gonna
do this all in one message". We can rule out the previous messages as this
immediately calls into question any potential connections. The extensive
argument, however, does seem to indicate that e thinks e is a player when e
called it. And so we see that if grok believed this argument, e would not
need to register in this message because e was already registered. E could
not have intended to register in this message when e was making such an
argument that e was already a player, or if he did intend to, it was
ambiguous. So, at the time of this judgement, grok is not a player.

Conclusion: (Why grok, why)

Let us consider the overarching message grok has sent, and all subsets of
messages. These messages consisted of no clear phrases like "I register."
All things that could be actions were votes, CFJs, COES, amendments, RWOs,
and resolutions. Some of these could make grok a player, but none of them
had a clear intent from grok that e wanted that to happen attached.

Let us consider that grok actually did intend to register in these
messages. E could have done it clearly and easily, but instead chose to
make it difficult to determine, in fact so difficult as to require a
judgement. This is contradictory: if e intended to register, which requires
clearness and unambiguity, e would not have done so with so much
convolution.

More importantly, let us consider if grok did not actually intend to
register. E could have done all these things as an effort to seem like e
wanted to register in an attempt at entertainment, engaging gameplay for
us, or for some nefarious purpose. In any case, if e did not intend to
register, it would be quite bad if we considered em registered, without eir
consent. If e did not want to be a player, and thus be bound by the rules,
then we would be remiss to force that upon em. We should let grok join as a
player when e clearly wants to, not when we decide e sort-of-maybe wants to.

Given in all the messages sent so far, we cannot be reasonably certain grok
intended to become a player, I judge the cfj that was meant to be called
FALSE.


{{{{
Reference cfjs:

CFJ 3776: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3776
CFJ 3130: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3130
CFJ 3148: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3148
CFJ 2979: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2979
CFJ 3033: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3033
CFJ 1451: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451

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