From - Fri Aug 25 17:28:26 2000
Status: R
Return-Path: <>
Received: from ([])
	by (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sqbijj.va6.37kbi1o
	for <>; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:22:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA02537
	for agora-discussion-list; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:16:09 GMT
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id BAA02534
	for <>; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:16:06 GMT
Received: (from mail@localhost)
	by (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA10304
	for <>; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:20:09 +1000 (EST)
Received: from by via smap (V2.1)
	id xma010302; Fri, 25 Aug 00 11:20:06 +1000
Received: (from gardner@localhost)
	by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA13860
	for; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:17:23 +1000 (EST)
From: Steve Gardner <>
Message-Id: <>
Subject: DIS: Repost of CFJ 1112
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:17:22 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <> from "Joshua Boehme" at Aug 24, 2000 08:53:27 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by id LAA13860
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by id BAA02535
Precedence: bulk
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: sqbijj.va6.37kbi1o

Joshua Boehme wrote:
>> - CFJ 1112
>> - CFJ 1125 Appelate Decision
>> - CFJ 1169
>These are incomplete or missing in the archive.


I'm sure I sent this to you some months ago. But anyway, here it is

                               CFJ 1112

  In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it
  is not sufficient that a collection of text "with the clear indication
  that that text is intended to become a Proposal" (R1483) merely be
  sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text
  must also be received in the Public Forum.


Called by:           Steve

Judge:               Ørjan
Judgement:           TRUE

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Andre, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, 
		     Kolja A., lee, Macross, Murphy, Ørjan, Peekee

Not eligible:
Caller:              Steve
Barred:              Morendil
Had their turn:      -
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             -



  Called by Steve:                         Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:08:24 +1100 
  Assigned to Oerjan:                      Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:37:44 +1100
  Judged TRUE by Ørjan:                    Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:04:16 +0100
  Judgement published:                     Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:23:38 +1100

Caller's Arguments:

The truth of the Statement almost, but not quite, follows directly from
R1483, which states that:

      A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some
      collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication
      that that text is intended to become a Proposal.  The collection
      of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing
      Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is
      said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal.

But R1483 only talks about Proposal *creation*, not about Proposal
*submission*. Nevertheless, armed with the distinction in R1483 between
collections of text on the one hand, and Proposals on the other, it is
only a short step to the truth of the Statement. One need only consider
the absurd consequences of denying the truth of the Statement. If we
denied it, and held instead that merely sending a collection of text to
the PF is sufficient for submitting a Proposal, then in a case like the
one which inspired this CFJ, in which Morendil provably has sent to the
Public Forum a collection of text intended to become a Proposal, but
which equally provably did not reach the Public Forum, we should have to
say that although Morendil submitted a Proposal, there is no Proposal
which Morendil submitted, since a Proposal is only created when the text
is delivered to the PF. That seems to me to be an untenable view.

Judge's Arguments:

After deliberating the meaning of "received in the Public Forum", I
have come to the conclusion that this term, while it can be
interpreted either when considering the PF (R478) as a medium (or
approximately, channel), or also when considering the Public Forum as
an abstract public space (presumably containing the Players), requires
an implicit recipient or recipients different from the Public Forum

While delivery to the Public Forum implies receipt _by_ the Public
Forum, it is not therefore clear that it implies receipt _in_ the
Public Forum.  I think this rests exactly upon the dichotomy between
medium/channel (which would, in our current situation, consist mainly
of the mailing list and its software, possibly including the list
administrator) and public space (which would include the Players,
except those with temporary connection problems).

Which should be used in the current situation?  I believe that the
latter would be in the best interest of the game, as it allows us to
liberate the Public Forum from technical issues and to consider a
message to be received only when it has been received by people, which
gives accountability.

However, it remains to argue that this is consistent with the
definition provided of Public Forum in Rule 478.  The way the Rule is
written, I interpret it as taking a medium/channel and vesting upon it
the property of also being a public space.  This does, I believe,
require that we consider the word "Public Forum" to be more than an
arbitrary name tag and to imply that the entities described in Rule
478 do become fora, in the common language sense.  I think this is an
admissible interpretation.

Given this, I conclude that receipt by and receipt in the Public Forum
are equivalent.  I further agree with the remainder of the argument 
provided by the Caller, and find the statement TRUE.

Evidence attached by the Judge:

Rule 478/9 (Power=1)
The Public Forum

      Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic
      Property.  The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given
      medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection.  When such
      a change is made, in order to be effective, the message
      annoucing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a
      Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public
      Forum after the change.  (If a single medium is a Public Forum
      both before and after the change, a single message to that
      medium satisfies this requirement.) 

      It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e
      is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the
      Registrar has designated as a Public Forum.  The temporary
      inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive
      that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. 

      Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to
      every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public
      Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that
      it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is
      verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active

      Whenever the Rules calls upon some Player to "announce", "post",
      or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall
      be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to
      the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise

(The current version is probably a nearly identical 478/10, amended by
Spring Cleaning.)


Steve Gardner                     |   Appearances to the contrary,
Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni.  |  things are just what they seem.    |