Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2822 =================== CFJ 2822 (Interest Index = 1) ==================== As a result of the quoted win announcement, comex satisfied the Winning Condition of Legislation ======================================================================== Caller: coppro Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE Appeal: 2822a Decision: REMAND Judge: G. Judgement: FALSE ======================================================================== History: Called by coppro: 27 Jul 2010 18:18:59 GMT Assigned to G.: 29 Jul 2010 02:16:11 GMT Judged FALSE by G.: 29 Jul 2010 16:53:54 GMT Appealed by coppro: 29 Jul 2010 19:24:30 GMT Appealed by omd: 29 Jul 2010 19:54:26 GMT Appealed by Yally: 29 Jul 2010 20:03:17 GMT Appeal 2822a: 29 Jul 2010 20:03:17 GMT REMANDED on Appeal: 31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT Remanded to G.: 31 Jul 2010 16:53:48 GMT Judged FALSE by G.: 12 Aug 2010 20:56:46 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: same as his. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On 07/27/2010 11:52 AM, comex wrote: > This is a win announcement: A proposal (6740) awarding a win to comex > has been adopted. > > (What? It's true, even if the proposal also awarded a win to other players.) > > CFJ: As a result of the above win announcement, a person other than > comex satisfied the Winning Condition of Legislation. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by ais523: Proposal 6740 is a "proposal awarding a win to one or more persons", so "all those persons" satisfy the Winning Condition. It's less obvious, though, whether the announcement was of the form that rule 2188 requires, but I think it probably was. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by omd: Would "win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted" suffice? If not (as I read it), "awarding a win to one or more persons" is part of the format of the announcement, so whatever is specified in place of 'one or more persons' (as long as the announcement is actually a win announcement, i.e., correct) is used for the following text. ======================================================================== Judge G.'s Arguments: First, Rule 2186/8 reads in part: A win announcement is a factually correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement and/or clearly stating ^^ that one or more persons win the game. As the "or" indicates, so as long as a factually correct announcement clearly states that one or more persons win the game, it is a win announcement, even if not labeled "win announcement". Some of the gratuitous arguments for these cases show that we have not been paying attention to the "or", but it's fairly clear and hard to interpret otherwise. Next, Rule 2188/1 reads: Upon a win announcement that a proposal awarding a win to one or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ more persons has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Winning Condition of Legislation. Cleanup procedure: The condition cannot be satisfied again for ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the same proposal. Taking these together, the actual Win Announcement for Legislation is the first (correct) announcement that a proposal with the proper awarding text has been adopted, as the text of a proposal satisfying R2188 would also satisfy text for a win announcement as per R2186[1]. The announcement that does so[2], of course, is the Assessor's first clear and correct voting report on the proposal in question[3]. Therefore, the presupposition of this CFJ, that the quoted text is a win announcement[4] is not correct. FALSE. --------- Footnotes [1] One question that the Callers of the CFJs *attempted* to get at: "does a win announcement have to list all winners, either to be a win announcement or to cause unlisted players to win?" The question is whether "clearly stating that one or more persons win the game" in R2186 is satisfied by stating literally "one or more persons has won the game" or whether, to be considered "clear", the announcement must explicitly list the persons in question. We can't answer this generally for all types of wins. For example, Solitude (R2245) is platonic (perhaps accidentally), not requiring a win announcement at all. For a Win by Legislation, R2188 is clear that the announcement is question is that a "proposal has been adopted", not that a particular person has won. Determining the identity of the winners is therefore delegated to the proposal text. So for a Win by Legislation, the win announcement must still state correctly that "one or more persons" won to literally satisfy R2186. Then, to be sufficiently clear, it is both necessary and sufficient for the announcement to explicitly reference the proposal, and the proposal must specify the set clearly (CFJ 2808 found that the proposal in question did, provided the set of winners is non-empty). If, optionally, the win announcement, *in addition to referencing the proposal*, correctly identified one or more of the winners (an incorrect identification would make the win announcement factually incorrect), the announcement would still cause "all those persons" specified in the proposal (not just those listed in the win announcement) to win. [2] This is all assuming there are actually a nonempty set of winners defined by the proposal in question (must be nonempty to satisfy "one or more"). CFJ 2808 opined on wording of the proposal but took for granted that the set of winners was non-empty and (more importantly) that at least one member of the set was reasonably determinable; this is assumed here as well, but not further explored. [3] A possible counterargument is timing: that the Assessor's announcement can't simultaneously announce the adoption of the proposal and be a win announcement, as the win "hasn't happened" at the time of the announcement. In that case, the first clear and correct statement of winning was the CotC's announcement of the results of CFJ 2808. Neither the CFJ call nor the judge's delivery of judgement published the full facts of the win in one place, but the CotC's announcement of the case results clearly announced that it was TRUE that one or more players won due to the proposal in question, meeting both R2186 and R2188 criteria. This reasoning would still result in a judgement of FALSE, albeit with an error rating for the timing of the actual win announcement and different implications for past and future win timing. [4] Yes, this "or" is something that we haven't noticed before, which may affect the timing of past Legislation Wins, in particular the whole Succession List reordering that happened with the Chamber wins a couple months ago. ======================================================================== Gratuitous Arguments by G.: The following announcements all work to be a win announcement for ALL persons specified as winning in Proposal 6470: "One or more persons has won due to Proposal 6740 being adopted". "comex has won (see Proposal 6470)" [provided comex is in the set, correctly identifying one of the "one or more persons" directly communicates that one or more persons has won]. "Proposal 6470 has been adopted due to these votes. [...] Text of Proposal 6470: [Reasonably-specified nonempty set of persons] has won." These don't work: "Proposal 6740 has been adopted" (no mention of one or more persons winning) "One or more persons has won" (no mention of proposal) "comex has won" (no mention of proposal) This is a borderline case: "Win announcement: proposal 6470 has been adopted." Because it might be implicit in the term "win announcement" that one or more persons has won. But I'd personally say it doesn't satisfy the test of "clearly". ======================================================================== Judge G.'s Arguments: The win announcement rule (r2186) says, a bit awkwardly, that a win announcement must consist of two parts. The first is a factually correct statement [hereafter the "content" of the win announcement]. The second is a label identifying the announcement as a win announcement. That label can either be (a) the text "win announcement" or (b) a statement that one or more persons won the game. The actual requirements of content that set up various win conditions are described in individual win conditions. The problem here is that the label of type (b) is identical in information to the required content of many announcement-triggered winning conditions. So it's possible to just state "these persons won the game due to X" and take the common-sense approach that the statement serves as both label and content that one or more persons won the game. It's also possible to attempt to confound label and content to set up contradictions, which is what we have to tease apart for this win by legislation. First: the relatively "easy" issue, raised by Appellant comex. All the text in R2188 refers to the content of the win announcement, not the label, and it's clear that the required content is the fact of the Proposal's adoption. The "all those" reference is a reasonably clear reference to the "one or more persons" earlier in the sentence, which is the "persons" that the proposal awards. If we parse this rule with parentheses it works like this: Upon a win announcement that a [proposal awarding a win to one or more persons] has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation. so that "all those persons" refers to all the persons in the proposal. This is clearly an intended and reasonable reading. On the other hand, comex would have us read it like this: Upon a [win announcement] that a proposal awarding [a win to one or more persons] has been adopted, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation. attempting to link up the "win announcement" and "one or more persons" to "all those persons in the win announcement but skipping the part about the proposal. This latter grouping is just not a strong or reasonable reading. Therefore an attempted win announcement creates a winning condition for the full set of persons named as winners in the proposal (even if only a subset of them are named as the "one or more"), or for none of them (if the win announcement as a whole is incorrect or otherwise invalid), but never for a subset of them, and never for anyone outside the set. Second: I myself raised the issue of whether a win announcement could be self-affirming, that is, if it could simultaneously award a win and be a true statement that someone wins. After some of the threads in discussion that all don't have an issue with self-affirming-ness, I'll say that the self-affirming works fine. Third: coppro raised the issue about whether the language "purports" is an issue. In the Agoran world of "doing by announcement", all an entity can "truly" do is claim, state, purport, announce, or otherwise say that e performs an action, then the rules determine if e actually does so. While "purport" has some cultural baggage (e.g. has the tone of a doubted accusation) I find that it is not a substantial difference in meaning when an entity is claiming to act by announcement/body of text. Therefore, a proposal or person saying "I announce that I do X, I claim that I do X, I purport that I do X" is all the same in terms of effect, and the same as the passive version "by this [statement/ proposal/etc], X is hereby done." And a Rule stating "when a proposal purports X" is also triggered when a proposal "says" X, "claims" X or otherwise announces X. So a proposal can state any of these things and it is purporting to do X, thus triggering R2188, and this issue has no further effect on the current case. Finally, when the Assessor correctly announced: The following proposals were adopted [...] [...] Proposal text: [player set Y] won the game. did this constitute a win announcement? Here, the statement that one or more persons won the game (e.g. the label) is buried deep within the proposal text (the content) and surrounded by other proposal texts and separated from the note that the proposal was adopted. In a more direct situation, (e.g. if someone isolates the proposal and announces it) then the content might serve as the label. However, here I reverse my previous stance, and say that the context was in fact too separate, there wasn't a well-contained or well-labeled win announcement there. So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): Award a win to player who did not acknowledge the existence of this proposal in a public or discussion forum after the time it was submitted and before the time it was adopted. Therefore, the alleged win announcement that "a proposal awarding a win to comex [among others] has been adopted" contains a false statement, so is neither true nor accurate, so is not a win announcement. Therefore, as the quoted statement was not a win announcement, it did not award a win to anyone. Both 2821 and 2822 are FALSE. ========================================================================