==============================  CFJ 1994  ==============================

    The PerlNomic Partnership has voted FOR on the Agoran decision on
    whether to adopt proposal 5545.


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Pavitra

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       09 Jun 2008 14:34:01 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra:                    13 Jun 2008 05:19:37 GMT
Pavitra recused:                        13 Jun 2008 20:31:41 GMT
Assigned to root:                       14 Jun 2008 13:50:42 GMT
Judged TRUE by root:                    21 Jun 2008 01:18:37 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

CFJ 1695 has established that it is possible for partnerships to take game
actions like voting; custom is that the contracts defining partnerships have
been free to define the method with which the partnership acts (e.g. compare
the AFO, which acts when its basis requests it to, with the PNP, which acts
according to Perl scripts whose content and input is determined by its basis).
The PNP sent the required vote to agora-business@agoranomic.org which is a
public forum; this is an appropriate forum for voting, so it acted under
paragraph 4 of its own contract. However, agora-business@agoranomic.org is not
currently working, so the resulting vote was never received by the other Agora

Rule 683 states, in part:
      An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
      ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
      indicating which one of the available options e selects.

Whether the PNP's vote exists depends, therefore, on whether the vote was
published. First note that the PNP cannot, with its current code, send emails
to any forum other than agora-business unless a proposal (with the PerlNomic
meaning) is passed to either send a one-off message to a different forum, or
to permanently change the forum used for messages to Agora. PerlNomic
proposals generally take a while to pass (using PerlNomic rather than Agoran
definitions in this sentence, they require support from more than half of the
active PerlNomic players to pass, and players can be active despite visiting
PerlNomic no more often than once a week), and so it would likely be
impractical for the PerlNomic partnership to use any forum other than
agora-business to cast eir vote. Does this mean that it can publish messages
in agora-business under its rule 101(vi) right, even when agora-business is
not currently working? What about the fact that the method by which
partnerships act is generally specified by the partnership itself.

As another point to consider, imagine a hypothetical partnership whose backing
document stated that it could be caused to act by the members of its basis
posting to agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (which is a discussion forum).
Would it be able to vote despite not publishing anything in a public forum?
What if the hypothetical partnership posted the action {{I send the message "I
vote FOR proposal 5545" to a public forum}} in a discussion forum, when its
backing document specifically stated that it could take game actions and/or
publish messages via this method?

Also, does it make a difference that it can be proved to all players that the
message was sent? (Compare CFJ 1905, and CFJ 1314.) Even more interestingly,
is it the case that the PNP did not vote before this CFJ, but /now/ has done,
because me filing this CFJ has brought the fact that the PNP voted to the
attention of all players? What if there is at least one player who isn't
subscribed to the backup public fora (this is only a "should" requirement
after all, and it's possible that there's at least one player who doesn't
follow it)?


Caller's Evidence:

The fact that the PNP sent a message to agora-business@agoranomic.org (a
public forum), due to the members of its basis acting using the mechanisms of
the PerlNomic game; this can be determined by any player who can read Perl by
visiting the PerlNomic log at http://nomic.info/perlnomic/log.txt (sending
that message is the only thing, short of a hidden scam that breaks the
PerlNomic metarules, that could cause the relevant log entry to be entered,
short of a proposal (with the PerlNomic meaning of proposal, which is similar
to the Agoran meaning but applies to a different nomic), and there were no
such proposals as can be seen from the proposals logs; the ability to read
Perl is needed to verify this, as it is the language in which the PerlNomic
ruleset is written).

This extract from the PNP's backing document:
4. The PerlNomic Partnership shall act by using the mechanisms of the
   PerlNomic game to send messages to the appropriate Agoran fora.  This
   is the only mechanism by which the PerlNomic Partnership may act.


Judge root's Arguments:

By the precedent in CFJ 1646, a public announcement is effective when
the message leaves the sender's technical domain of control, as
established by the "Received" headers.  Since the message has arrived
subsequent to the initiation of this CFJ, it can be inspected to
verify that this had indeed happened at the time the case was
initiated.  Accordingly, I judge TRUE.