==============================  CFJ 2202  ==============================

    Proposal 5707 is a democratic proposal.

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

Caller:                                 Wooble
Barred:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Wooble:                       01 Oct 2008 15:44:25 GMT
Assigned to root:                       02 Oct 2008 06:03:12 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   07 Oct 2008 21:48:21 GMT

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

Judge root's Arguments:

The order of events as I understand it is this:

23 Sep 2008 22:05:13: ais523 attempts to distribute a proposal 5707, but
fails.
23 Sep 2008 22:08:59: woggle announces eir intent to make proposal
5707 democratic.
23 Sep 2008 23:21:26: PNP distributes proposal 5707.
01 Oct 2008 12:30:25: Wooble attempts to make proposal 5707 democratic
using woggle's intent.

At the time woggle announced eir intent, there was no proposal 5707
and no Agoran decision about whether to adopt it.  As such, woggle was
not authorized to make the decision democratic at the time.  Per R728,
"A player authorized to perform a dependent action (the initiator) CAN
publicly announce eir intent to do so"  Per R2125(c), the action of
announcing intent to perform a dependent action is therefore
regulated, and it CANNOT be performed except as allowed by the rules.
Because of this, woggle's attempt to announce eir intent to perform
the action failed.  To my knowledege, there have been no other
attempts to make the proposal democratic, so I assign a judgement of
FALSE to CFJ 2202.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

ais523 wrote:

> Well, I think the democratisation didn't work for slightly different
> reasons; woggle intended to make a non-existent (at the time) Agoran
> decision democratic. As it happens, a proposal was assigned the number
> 5707, and there was an Agoran decision about it; but a different
> proposal (there were 7 in the pool at the time IIRC) could have been
> assigned that number, or the number might not have been used due to a
> Promotor mistake, for instance. So I don't think that the intent was
> unambiguous, and unambiguity is needed for an intent to work.

woggle stated eir intent in response to the Monster's alleged deputy
distribution of 5707, which was only later determined to have been
invalid because the Promotor wasn't required to distribute it until the
following week.  That's unambiguous enough in my book, especially since
that same proposal did get ID number 5707 when the PNP distributed it.

I'm curious, I looked up this context in the archives and you made this
comment:

> I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Promotor to assign
> this proposal the ID number 5707 (believing a lower number would be
> confusing, as the PerlNomic Partnership has already reserved all lower
> numbers for proposals it's tried and failed to distribute).

but I don't remember the PNP publishing any invalid attempts to
distribute (except for an early test run, and one of my proposals where
someone entered the wrong AI).  Were you referring to someone activating
a "publish what's in the pool" script containing some "not until more
time passes and/or more proposals are added" logic, or what?

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

There were 6 proposals in the pool at the time (7 after the proposal),
and the PNP tends to distribute proposals in the order they were
submitted unless there are at least 10 in the pool. The PNP wasn't told
about 5707 until after 5701-6 had been distributed so that it would
distribute it in a distribution by its own, but that was simply because
it was the most convenient way to do it; that part of the scam could
equally well have been done by removing 5701-6 from PerlNomic's notion
of what the pool was, distributing 5707, and re-adding them (and thus
the proposal called 5707 in the current gamestate would instead have
been 5701), and the only reason it wasn't done that way was that it
would have been more typing. In other words, which proposal would get
the number 5707 was far from certain until it was actually distributed.

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