==============================  CFJ 2180  ==============================

    The message sent by "agoran@live.com" on "Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:15:58
    +0000" was successful in submitting a proposal.

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

Caller:                                 Anonymous

Judge:                                  Sir Toby
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED

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

History:

Called by Anonymous:                    23 Sep 2008 20:14:34 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby:                   28 Sep 2008 21:57:19 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by Sir Toby:        04 Oct 2008 22:06:05 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

I argue for a TRUE judgement in this case.

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

Judge Sir Toby's Arguments:

The message sent by "agoran@live.com" on "Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:15:58
+0000" (see evidence 1) attempted to submit a proposal. The question is
whether or not the message was successful in submitting a proposal.

Rule 106 (see evidence 2) defines what a proposal is and how it is
submitted. Rule 106 says this about 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."
Clearly the message in question contains a proposal, as it outlines
changes to be made to Agora. Rule 106 says this about submitting
proposals: "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." There is a clear indication that the
document is intended to become a proposal. The only question remaining
is whether or not the author of the message is a player.

The message in question was signed "Anonymous", so we don't know who
sent it. While there has been some speculation regarding who sent the
message, no one has either confirmed or denied sending the message. The
message does claim that the author is a player.

Rule 2170 (see evidence 3) provides guidance for claims of identity and
states the following: "A public message's claim as to who published it
is self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a
challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been
issued within one month before its publication." Rule 2201 (see evidence
4) discusses self-ratification and states the following: "Any public
document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified one week
after its publication, unless explicitly and publicly challenged during
that period via one of the following methods, explaining the scope and
nature of the perceived error." One of the options defined in Rule 2201
for challenging a document is a "claim of error", and is stated as
follows: "A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact.  The
publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim of error as
soon as possible, either publishing a revision or denying the claim.  If
e denies the claim, then the original document is ratified one week
after the denial, unless it is challenged again (subject to the same
requirements) during that period."

This judge is aware of no challenge of identity pertaining to the
claimed publisher within one month before the publication of the message
in question. However, on "Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:20:33 -0600" root issued a
claim of error regarding the claim that the author of the message in
question is a player (see evidence 5). This judge is aware of no
response from the author of the message in question regarding the claim
of error. The end result is that the claim that the author of the
message is a player did not self-ratify. This does not necessarily mean
that the author is not a player, it just means that we cannot depend
upon ratification of the claim.

Rule 2139 (see evidence 6) specifies that the Registrar's report
includes information sufficient to identify and contact each player. The
most recent Registrar's report (see evidence 7) does not have any
mention of "agoran@live.com".

Without a ratified claim of identity for the author of the message in
question or sufficient information in the Registrar's report to to
determine the identity of the author of the message in question, this
judge finds insufficient information to determine if the author of the
message in question is a player. As a result, this judge renders a
judgement of UNDETERMINED for CFJ 2180.

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

Judge Sir Toby's Evidence:

<evidence id="1">
From: invalid invalid <agoran@live.com>
To: <agora-business@agoranomic.org>
Subject: BUS: Try 2: Repeal Partnerships
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:15:58 +0000

I am already a player.
I submit the following proposal, titled "Repeal Partnerships" (AI=2, II=0):

{{

Repeal Rule 2144 (Limited Partnerships).

Repeal Rule 2145 (Partnerships).

Amend Rule 2178 (Public Contracts) by deleting this text:

     A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by
     publishing its text and membership.

}}

-- Anonymous
</evidence>



<evidence id="2">
Retrieved from:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-October/
005076.html

Rule 106/13 (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.  That player is its
      author (syn. proposer).  The author of a proposal may remove it
      from the Pool by announcement.

      A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is
      distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its
      author as being its co-author at the time of submission.

      The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
      from 1.0 to 9.9.  It may be set by the proposer at the time of
      submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.

      Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.
      For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of
      the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor.

      If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
      then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
      from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
      its adoption index, and then it takes effect.  It does not
      otherwise take effect.

      Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change.
      This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a
      proposal to take effect.
</evidence>



<evidence id="3">
Retrieved from:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-October/
005076.html

Rule 2170/2 (Power=3)
Who Am I?

      Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not
      to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those
      persons within Agora.

      A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead
      others as to the identity of its publisher.

      A public message's claim as to who published it is
      self-ratifying, unless the claim is self-contradictory, or a
      challenge of identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has
      been issued within one month before its publication.

      The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who
      sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be
      sent.  The executor of an action performed by announcement is
      the executor of the announcement.
</evidence>



<evidence id="4">
Retrieved from:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-October/
005076.html

Rule 2201/0 (Power=3)
Self-Ratification

      Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
      ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and
      publicly challenged during that period via one of the following
      methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error:

      a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal
         interpretation.

      b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact.  The
         publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim
         of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or
         denying the claim.  If e denies the claim, then the original
         document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is
         challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during
         that period.
</evidence>



<evidence id="5">
From: "Ian Kelly" <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com>
To: agora-business@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: BUS: Try 2: Repeal Partnerships
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2008 14:20:33 -0600

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:15 PM, invalid invalid <agoran@live.com> wrote:
> >
> > I am already a player.

CoE: The executor of the quoted message might not be a player.

-root
</evidence>



<evidence id="6">
Retrieved from:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-October/
005076.html

Rule 2139/1 (Power=1)
The Registrar

      The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for
      keeping track of players.

      The Registrar's report includes, for each player:

      a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em.
      b) The date on which e most recently became a player.
</evidence>



<evidence id="7">
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-October/
005078.html
</evidence>

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