==============================  CFJ 1409  ==============================

    Sir Toby's COE in
    http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m7478.html was not a
    valid Claim of Error.

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

Caller:                                 OscarMeyr

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Sir Toby
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Michael
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by OscarMeyr:                    12 Aug 2002 01:49:33 GMT
Assigned to root:                       27 Aug 2002 17:32:54 GMT
root recused:                           09 Sep 2002 05:36:40 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby:                   16 Sep 2002 04:53:10 GMT
Sir Toby recused:                       18 Sep 2002 14:54:37 GMT
Assigned to Michael:                    19 Sep 2002 18:57:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by Michael:                20 Sep 2002 09:39:41 GMT
Appealed by OscarMeyr:                  22 Sep 2002 21:52:23 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

A COE is a correction to a statement of the game state, and not a
statement of the game state itself.  A correction to the correction (a
meta-COE, if you will) attempts to resolve a disputed statement about
the game state through a cumbersome method:  If the meta-COE is
accepted, is the original COE withdrawn?  Can it be withdrawn?  Does it
cease to exist?  And if it did, what was the meta-COE about?

The Rules-defined handling of a COE is to post a Response to the COE.
If the Response is further disputed, game custom, as I understand it, is
to CFJ on the dispute, and let the Judgment system resolve the matter.

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

Caller's Evidence:

(1) Sir Toby's COE
(http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m7478.html):

Subject:           Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Scorekeepor's report of Aug. 8
     Date:           Sat, 10 Aug 2002 08:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
     From:           "Jeffrey J. Weston" <jjweston@kenny.sir-toby.com>
 Reply-To:           agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
       To:           agora-business@agoranomic.org

On Fri, 9 Aug 2002, David Locke wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Aug 2002 OscarMeyr Wrote:
> >
> >Scorekeepor's Report for August 8, 2002
> >
> >Time of last report
> >-------------------
> >
> >  5 Aug 2002
> >
> >   - Goethe Awarded 20 Points - Life Contest Award
>
> COE: The Notice of Award was incorect.

COE: The Notice of Award was quite correct, and Goethe did indeed gain 20
Points.

Only one rule speaks of a Notice of Award, Rule 1990. It reads as
follows:

Rule 1990/0 (Power=1)
Points Contests

      A Contest may be a Points Contest if its ACO specifically states
      that it is a Points Contest.  A Player may not be the
      Contestsmaster of more than one Points Contest in a single Nomic
      month.

      PWIN is the number of points required for a Player to achieve a
      win condition, as defined elsewhere in the Rules.  PPP (Points
      Per Player) is PWIN divided by twenty.

      Once during each month that starts while the Contest exists, a
      Points Contest's Contestmaster may post a single valid Notice of
      Award to the Public Forum, listing any number of the Contest's
      Contestants, and a listing a positive number of Points to be
      awarded to each Contestant on the list.  Different Contestants
      may be awarded different numbers of points in the same listing.
      The posting must obey all regulations for such posting contained
      in the Contest's SLC to be valid.

      The total Points listed to be awarded to all Contestants in each
      such monthly Notice may not exceed PPP times the number of
      Players who were Contestants of the Contest at any time in the
      14 days prior to the Notice.  If more points than this are
      listed the Notice is invalid.

      The total number of Points that a single Player may receive from
      all Points Contests in a single month may not exceed PWIN
      divided by five.  If a Points Contest Notice would bring a
      Player's total to more points than this than the Notice is
      invalid for that Player only.

      The posting of such a Notice of Award, if valid, is an event
      Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players.

The Notice of Award, sent out by me, reads as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2002 23:14:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeffrey J. Weston <jjweston@kenny.sir-toby.com>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: BUS: Life Contest: Notice of Award

The regulations of the Life Contest require me to publish the following
Notice of Award:

Goethe Controls the most Cells: 125. I note that PWIN is 100. PPP is 5.  I
multiply PPP times the number of contestants, 6, and determine that Goethe
needs to be awarded 30 Points. This award exceeds PWIN divided by 5.
Goethe instead can only be awarded 20 Points.

Life awards 20 Points to Goethe.

--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This notice was sent once during a month that started when Life existed.  A
contestant was awarded a positive value of Points. The notice obeyed all
regulations of Life. The total points awarded did not exceed PPP times the
number of contestants. Since the Notice of Award met all requirements for
being valid, per Rule 1990, it is valid.

Now I can imagine the next thing you will say: It didn't specify the Rule
allowing the Award or Penalty, and thus Goethe did not gain any Points,
even though the Notice of Award may have technically been valid. Well,
you'd be right. The Notice of Award did not directly cause Goethe to gain
any Points. As per Rule 1990, "The posting of such a Notice of Award, if
valid, is an event Awarding the listed Points to the listed Players."
However, now lets take a close look at Rule 1929, which reads as
follows:

Rule 1929/4 (Power=1)
Points

      A Player's Score is a measure of that Player's unloserliness,
      measured in Points. The Score of each Player is at all times an
      integer. A Player who has not been Awarded or Penalized since
      the last Win has a Score of zero Points.

      The Rules may specify that certain events may cause a certain
      Player to be Awarded Points (causing eir Score to be increased)
      or Penalized Points (causing eir Score to be decreased). If said
      event occurs, then any Player may notify the Scorekeepor of the
      Award or Penalty. The Scorekeepor shall then note the change in
      the affected Player's Score.

      Such a notification must meet the following requirements, else
      it is ineffective:
         -- It must be sent within 7 days of the event
         -- It must unambiguously describe the event
         -- It must indicate the Rule allowing the Award or Penalty
         -- It must be the first such notification for that specific
            event

      Having a Score of 100 Points or more is a Win Condition. If at
      any time a Player Wins the Game, all Player's Scores shall
      instantly be set to zero.

OscarMeyr saw the event that awarded points to Goethe, and went on to
notify the Scorekeepor of the event in the following message:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:55:44 -0400
From: Benjamin Schultz <ke3om@earthlink.net>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
To: Agora Business <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
Subject: Re: BUS: Life Contest: Notice of Award

"Jeffrey J. Weston" wrote:

> The regulations of the Life Contest require me to publish the following
> Notice of Award:
>
> Goethe Controls the most Cells: 125. I note that PWIN is 100. PPP is 5.
> I multiply PPP times the number of contestants, 6, and determine that
> Goethe needs to be awarded 30 Points. This award exceeds PWIN divided by
> 5. Goethe instead can only be awarded 20 Points.
>
> Life awards 20 Points to Goethe.

... as per Rule 1990.
--
Benjamin Schultz, KE3OM
OscarMeyr

"You're the first person I know who's wanted to change
their A to an F."  -- Goethe, on Agora-discussion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

OscarMeyr's notification was sent within 7 days of the event (the Life
award). It unambiguously described the event by quoting the Notice of
Award in its entirety. It indicated the Rule allowing the Award or
Penalty. It was the first such notification for this event. Since all
requirements for the notification were met, the notification is effective
and Goethe is awarded eir Points.

--
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)


*********
(2)
Rule 1431/15 (Power=1)
Claims of Error

      A Claim of Error is a public message to the effect that a
      specific public communication misrepresents the actual Game
      State, and documenting the nature of the error.

      A Response to a Claim of Error posting publicly either a denial
      of the Claim or an admission of the Claim. If the Claim is
      admitted, then the Player making the admission is required to
      post a corrected version of the relevant portion of the message
      which was in error, before one week passes from the time the
      Claim of Error was made. A Player who admits a Claim but does
      not publish a correction is deemed not to have Responded to that
      Claim.

      A Response must be provided by the Player who is required by the
      Rules to publish the information subject to a Claim within one
      week of the Claim being made, unless any of the following holds:
       * a previous Claim was made concerning the same error
       * the relevant message has been posted more than 21 days before
       * another message by the same Player has corrected the error
       * the Claim is in dispute

      A Player who fails to post a Response within the allotted time
      commits the Class 1 Infraction of Delayed COE Response, to be
      reported by the Player who posted the Claim. A Player who
      incorrectly issues a denial of a Claim commits the Crime of
      Wrongful COE Denial, a Class 1 Crime, unless e then admits the
      Claim within 72 hours after the incorrect denial.

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

Judge Michael's Arguments:

To make a Claim of Error is to claim that "a specific public
communication misrepresents the actual Game State, and documenting the
nature of the error" (R1431).

The communication history in this case is of the form

  X produces document D.
  Y claims document D is in error with a COE.
  X replies with a COE, denying Y's claim.

The only question that need concern us here is whether or not Y's
message can be said to misrepresent the actual Game State.  The
additional documentation supporting X's claim is present.  Nor need we
look into the issue of who would need to reply to X's claim.

Clearly, if Y claims that X's document D is incorrect, then Y is
making a claim about the nature of the actual Game State.  Therefore,
X is in a position to claim that Y's claim is incorrect.  In X's
opinion, Y is misrepresenting the actual Game State.

Therefore, I enter a judgement of FALSE.

Notes:
  * the first sentence of the second paragraph of Rule 1431 is
    ungrammatical.
  * as X was in this case required to produce the information subject
    to the COE, X probably has to Respond to their own COE.

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

Appellant OscarMeyr's Arguments:

Trial Judge Michael analyzed an incorrect situation in eir Arguments.
Specifically, e said:

"The communication history in this case is of the form

"  X produces document D.
"  Y claims document D is in error with a COE.
"  X replies with a COE, denying Y's claim."

The third line here is incorrect.  X did not reply to the COE with another COE
-- instead, Z submitted the secondary COE.  Caller's Evidence #1 clearly shows
this history.  To recap for the Appelate Judges:
1.  OscarMeyr [me] published the Score Report of 8 Aug 2002.
2.  RedKnight COE'd the report.
3.  Sir Toby COE'd RedKnight's COE.

Accordingly, I ask that the CFJ be reevaluated according to the situation
under review.

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