==============================  CFJ 2065  ==============================

    Sgeo has won today or yesterday (relative to the initiation of this
    CFJ).

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

Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ehird:                        07 Jul 2008 20:31:02 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     12 Jul 2008 15:20:22 GMT
Judged FALSE by woggle:                 17 Jul 2008 01:46:35 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by root:

The judge may find CFJ 1334 to be an informative precedent.

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

Judge woggle's Arguments:

For reference: First, Sgeo's statement of intent:

With Agoran Consent, I intend to act on behalf of Agora to award a win to
myself
and all persons who support my acting on behalf of Agora in this way.

And eir allged action:

With Agoran Consent, I act on behalf of Agora to award myself and all
supporters a Win.

--
The first issue is whether the statement of intent "unambiguously
descri[s] both the action and the method". The method (Agoran Consent)
is correctly described. Whether the action is correctly described
depends on whether "all persons who support my acting on behalf of
Agora in this way" is unambiguous.

Precedent in CFJ 1334 (referenced by root's arguments) has held that a
statement of intent is ambiguous when it is missing an essential
parameter for the action in question that will need to be assigned
when the action is completed. Arguably, who actually supports the
action is an essential parameter here that is so missing at the time
of the statement of intent. Allowing arbitrary incorporation of
volatile essential parameters would eviscerate the intent of the
rules' requirement that the action be unambiguously specified in the
statement of intent, for a clever conspiracy could completely change
the action allegedly intended after the statement of intent. Now, this
case is not so bad because Sgeo does not control eir parameter. And,
indeed, some uncertainty is inherent from statements of intent because
the rules give latitude as to when exactly they are resolved. But the
ambiguity of Sgeo's intent rises well above that level, as the entire
contents of the most essential parameter of the action are determined
after the statement of intent.

Therefore I judge FALSE.

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