==============================  CFJ 2316  ==============================

    Objecting to the performance of a dependent action is not
    ineffective solely because the objection is published before the
    intent to perform that action is published.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  harblcat

Judge:                                  omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Murphy:                       22 Dec 2008 17:16:10 GMT
Assigned to harblcat:                   23 Dec 2008 00:46:00 GMT
harblcat recused:                       15 Jan 2009 08:12:36 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        15 Jan 2009 08:28:40 GMT
omd recused:                            26 Jan 2009 01:15:18 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         26 Jan 2009 07:47:00 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     26 Jan 2009 19:14:48 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

Caller's evidence, part 1 of 2:


From: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (Elliott Hird)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:45:34 +0000

On 10 Dec 2008, at 20:37, Ed Murphy wrote:

> Rule 2124 doesn't explicitly state that the objection must be posted
> after the announcement of intent.

I object to all future dependent actions.

Caller's evidence, part 2 of 2:


From: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (Elliott Hird)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:38:50 +0000

On 18 Dec 2008, at 22:30, Ed Murphy wrote:

> ehird, want to withdraw your objection to these, so that H. Notary
> Charles might complete the procedures?
> I also recommend the following for termination:
>   needed_support--
>   copy of needed_support--
>   Looping
> but not Z House, which can still be used for appeals.

I leave Z house. Let's stick to Looping.

And I withdraw my 'bjc'tns.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

First, note that the last paragraph of R2124/10 (added 10-Jan-09) has
clarified the situation legislatively, and makes this statement FALSE in
the current ruleset.  This CFJ was called 22-Dec-08 and therefore 2124/9
is the relevant rule.

In R2124/9, the relevant statement is:
                                                     "An Objector to a
      dependent action is a first-class player (or other person
      explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing
      that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted
      (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
      to perform the action."

This does not directly come out and forbid pre-intent objections; however,
it does tie an objection to a *specific* announcement ("the" announcement
of intent).

Now, announcements of Intent, by both Rule and precedent, are some of
the most strictly specific communications in the game.  From R1728/22:
         "A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
          action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
and many dependent actions have failed for lack of specificity in the
intent ("unambiguously and clearly specifying" is a tougher standard
than is required for many actions).  By custom, we do not require post-
intent objections to be so precise, for example: "I object to all
recently-posted intents to do X" has been taken to be sufficient.
Erring on the side of unambiguity in the intent and allowing generality
in objections is, in general, for the good of the game; the range of
powerful w/o objection actions possible in the game means better safe
(preventative) than sorry.

However, all these cases of allowing general objection still fall into
the realm of administrative convenience; e.g., the same convenience of
allowing "I vote 20x FOR" or "I do X 100 times".  Technically and
strictly, each objection must refer to a specific ("the") dependent
action to which one objects.  And just as other administrative
conveniences must map onto a reasonably well-defined finite set of
actually possible actions (see CFJs 1584, 1728, and others), this Court
finds that a general objection, to be a valid objection, *must* map
reasonably onto a well-defined set of unambiguous and specific intent

Quite simply, unposted (i.e. future) intents do not meet the test of
belonging such a set; future actions are not a well-defined, and it is
not, using Judge Michael's test in CFJ 1584, "clearly feasible" to refer
to a specific ("the") unambiguous message of intent when it may or may
not exist in the future.  This is true even if a precise definition is
made ("I object to all intents to do X made by Y with Z objections in the
next Q hours"); the fact remains that referring to something which may or
may not exist in the future or of which arbitrarily many may exist in
future permutations does not constitute a clearly feasible reference to a
well-defined set.

This Court finds that the fact that a mapping to a "the" specific intent or
an administratively-convenient set of "the" intents CANNOT be made at the
time the objection, is posted disqualifies the objection from mapping to
an intent at all.  Therefore, this court finds FALSE; pre-objecting was
ineffective at the time this CFJ was called.