==============================  CFJ 1647  ==============================

    Murphy's message with datestamp Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:59:19 -0700 had
    the effect of submitting a proposal.

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

Caller:                                 Taral

Judge:                                  Sherlock
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Human Point Two
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Taral:                        30 Apr 2007 17:34:35 GMT
Assigned to Sherlock:                   04 May 2007 20:22:26 GMT
Sherlock recused:                       07 Jun 2007 21:06:19 GMT
Assigned to Human Point Two:            13 Jun 2007 01:41:45 GMT
Human Point Two recused:                26 Jun 2007 20:33:13 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     27 Jun 2007 21:14:10 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 29 Jun 2007 03:56:24 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 106 states, in part, "A player submits a proposal by publishing
it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal".
I argue that the form of Murphy's message did not contain any such
indication. I see a request to remove this (existing) proposal from
the pool, albeit referencing it with the wrong name, and then a
precise copy of the existing proposal.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 106/4 (Power=3)
Adopting Proposals

     A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
     including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
     other explicit changes to the gamestate.

     A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear
     indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which
     places the proposal in the Proposal Pool.  The proposer of a
     proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement.
[rule abbreviated]

-----
Message-ID: <46353157.1000108@socal.rr.com>
From: Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com>
To: Agora Business <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
Subject: Re: BUS: Proposal:  Protection Racket
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:59:19 -0700

I remove "Proposal Racket" from the pool.

Proposal:  Protection Racket

[We will, of course, relinquish this power and implement a fix, in
return for a suitable token.  To do otherwise would be Not Fun.]

Create a rule with this text:

      Murphy, OscarMeyr, and Quazie are Oligarchs.

      An Oligarch may refuse a CFJ by announcement.  A refused CFJ
      ceases to be a CFJ.

      An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement.  A refused
      proposal ceases to be a proposal.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Based on the preponderance of publications over the past few years,
I argue that messages of this general form:

  "I retract proposal <name>.
   Proposal:  <similar name>
   <text similar to that of the retracted proposal>"

constitutes a clear indication that the stuff after the retraction
is intended to become a proposal, and that the clear/unclear meter
does not undergo a discontinuous jump when "similar" reaches the
limit of "identical".

The following hypothetical cases would be substantively different:

  1) A player sends two messages, both containing "Proposal:
     <identical name> <identical text>" and nothing else.

  2) A player refers to a proposal using an excerpt from its text,
     because its name and number may be nonexistent or ambiguous.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

(pseudo-judged by root to avoid some conflicts of interest)

According to Rule 106/4:

   A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
   including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
   other explicit changes to the gamestate.

The text in Murphy's message outlines the enactment of a rule, so it
does meet the criteria for a proposal.  Rule 106/4 continues, "A
player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication
that it is intended to become a proposal."  The message was sent to a
public forum, so it was published by definition.  The only question is
whether there was a clear indication that it was intended to become a
proposal.

The purported proposal included the heading "Proposal:  Protection
Racket", followed by the body of the proposal.  This style of proposal
submission is not uncommon, and under normal circumstances it would
constitute the "clear indication" required by Rule 106.  However, this
case is complicated by two facts:  the proposal was preceded in the
message by a (mis-referenced) attempt to withdraw an existing
proposal, and the remainder of the message was identical in to that of
the message in which the existing proposal was submitted.  Could this
reasonably have been interpreted as merely a further description of
the proposal to be removed?  If so, then the message lacked "clear
indication".

I believe the answer to that question is "yes".  It is not unheard of
to reference a proposal using the full text of the proposal or its
submission message, especially when the proposal's number has not yet
been published, as appears to have been the case here.  It is not
necessary that such a reference include "Reply" markings or
indentation, as the message may be a result of cut-and-paste.  There
was no clear indication that the message was intended as only a single
action, but there was also no clear indication that it was intended as
two separate actions.

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