From - Fri Mar 17 15:39:35 2000
Return-Path: <owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16])
	by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sd4qvv.35n.30ahi43
	for <elysion@mindspring.com>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:31:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA27278
	for agora-official-list; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:13:00 GMT
Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1])
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27275
	for <agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:12:56 GMT
Received: (from mail@localhost)
	by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id EAA71991
	for <agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au>; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:41 +1100 (EST)
Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1)
	id xma071989; Sat, 18 Mar 00 04:27:17 +1100
Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id MAA01535 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:12:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Slone <mpslon01@msuacad.morehead-st.edu>
Message-Id: <200003171712.MAA01535@msuacad.morehead-st.edu>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 1204 Judged FALSE
To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official)
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:12:23 EST
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4]
Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
X-Mozilla-Status: 8001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
X-UIDL: sd4qvv.35n.30ahi43


==============================  CFJ 1204  ==============================

    A message that is sent to the email address of a Public Forum
    but not distributed to any Players has not been sent to a Public
    Forum.                                                          

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

Called by:                     t                                       

Judge:                         lee                                     
Judgement:                     FALSE                                   

Judge selection:

Eligible:                      Anthony, Blob, Chuck, Murphy, Oerjan,
                               Peekee, Sherlock, Wes, elJefe, harvel,
                               lee                                     

Not eligible:
Caller:                        t                                       
Barred:                        -                                       
Had eir turn:                  Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Steve, t     
Already served:                -                                       
Defaulted:                     Harlequin                               
By request:                    Michael                                 
On Hold:                       Novalis, Palnatoke                      
Zombie:                        Schneidster                             

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

History:

Called by t                    16 Mar 2000 12:40:07 +0200 (EET)        
Assigned to lee:               16 Mar 2000 17:59:13 -0500              
Judged FALSE by lee:           16 Mar 2000 22:40:57 -0600              
Judgement published:           As of this message                      

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

Caller's Motion (denied by lee):

I also submit a motion pertaining to this CFJ, asking the Judge of the
CFJ, to issue an Order to Annotate Rule 478 with the statement of this
CFJ.

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 478 defines the Public Forum in an ambiguous manner. This ambiguity
is resolved by CFJ 1112 which states that the entities called Public Fora
are public spaces and thus include not only the mailing list software but
also the Players. Rule 478 does include the Players in the definition with
the following statement: "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." Common sense dictates
that this sentence should not be interpreted as forcing the Players to
have responsibility over such technical issues as mailing list software.

The following statement included in Rule 478 is important to this CFJ:
"The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not
deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum." While it
may be argued that this definition guarantees messages sent to the email
address of a mailing list serving as a Public Forum the legal significance
of being sent to a Public Forum, this argument fails to account for the
wording of Rule 478. The fact that the Rule uses the word "receive" makes
it clear that if a mailing list functioning as a Public Forum receives a
message and sends it to a Player who doesn't receive it because of
technical problems, the message is still legally sent to a Public Forum as
defined by the Rule.

What then, if a message that has been sent to the email address of a
mailing list serving as a Public Forum is not received by any Players?
Clearly, this is not a temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public
Forum but the temporary inability of the mailing list software to
distribute the Public Forum. The act of sending a message to an email
address doesn't necessarily have the legal significance of the message
being sent to a Public Forum, if the message doesn't reach the Public
Forum, provided that we accept that, as the arguments of CFJ 1112 state,
the Public Fora do include Players. A message becomes a message sent to a
Public Forum only if it is received by all Active Players who have ensured
that they will receive the messages sent to an email address which has
been designated as a Public Forum, not including those Players who don't
receive the message due to a temporary inability on their end.

Therefore I ask the prospective Judge to return eir verdict after
considering the Rules, my arguments, the attached evidence and the best
interests of the game.

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Steve Gardner wrote:

>
==========================================================================
>                                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.
> 
>
==========================================================================
[snip]

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
itself.

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.

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
      Player.

      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.)

Greetings,
Ørjan.



Rule 478/10 (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
      announcing 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
      Player.

      Whenever the Rules call 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.

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

Judge lee's Arguments:

I judge this statement False.  

First, on the surface we have the normal use of language.  To send
something means to send it, it does not matter if it was received.  The
two are quite distinct. The plots of many shows revolve around this point.

But since Agorans like lots of reasons let me present a couple of me
angles.

The Statement that i am ruling on is roughly equivalent to: 

A check that is mailed to the address of your electric company but not
applied to your account has not been sent to your electric company. 

I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that the above is false.  I have
even sent checks to pay bills, had the checks received by the company,
deposited at the bank, but not forwarded to the proper individuals in
accounts receivable to have my account adjusted. Obviously, this was a
case where the check was sent to the company, but not delivered to the
proper recipients. Nobody can successfully argue that I did not send the
check It took several letters to make the company see the light, but
eventually they acknowledged that I had sent the payment.

Let's look at an Agoran example close to the one above.  Instead of the
different departments, there are different sets of people, Watchers and
Players.

Let's say that the registrar's report lists the public forum's address. 
Several watchers and all players are subscribed to that mail list. Now
let's say that through some clever hacking all Player's were unsubscribed
from that list without their knowledge.  Some one then sends a message to
that list.  It is distributed to the Watchers but not to the Players. Just
as my check went to who knows what department, rather than accounts
receivable. Would the message sent to the address of the public forum and
received by all the watchers have been sent to the Public forum? I think
so.  A watcher could produce the headers to prove it too.  Unfortunately
we don't have the headers in this case. It doesn't change the fact that
the messages were sent to the public forum.

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

Judge lee's Evidence:

<none>

========================================================================
--
Michael Slone - http://vir.fclib.org/~harvel/
I think the issue is that Wes purports to be plural.
		-- Kelly, in agora-discussion