==============================  CFJ 2731  ==============================

    the decision on whether to adopt the proposal Pragmatize Strict
    Ordering has been initiated.

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

Caller:                                 Tiger

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED

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

History:

Called by Tiger:                        08 Nov 2009 00:12:11 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        13 Nov 2009 21:47:09 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by omd:             14 Nov 2009 01:44:35 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

2009/11/8 Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com>:
> Tiger wrote:
>
>> 2009/11/4 Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com>:
>>> I interpret the status of the proposal "Pragmatize strict ordering"
>>> as follows:
>>>
>>>  * First attempt to assign ID number 6546 was unsuccessful, as the
>>>    wrong author was specified and this was promptly pointed out.
>>>
>>>  * Second attempt to assign ID number 6546 was successful, as the
>>>    first attempt wasn't.
>>>
>>>  * Attempt to assign ID number 6548 was unsuccessful, as 6546 was
>>>    successfully assigned on the second attempt.
>>>
>>>  * Each of these three attempts was accompanied by an attempt to
>>>    initiate a voting period, which was successful iff the attempt
>>>    to assign an ID number was.
>>>
>>> If I've got this wrong, then let me know, otherwise I'll resolve
>>> 6542-48 on this basis in a few days.
>>>
>>> Unofficial tallies:
>>>
>>>  * 6546a (if somehow effective) would be adopted (8F 2A)
>>>  * 6546b (if effective) would be adopted (3F 2A)
>>>  * 6548 (if effective) would have its voting period doubled (1F 2A
>>>      and only 3 voters vs. quorum of 5)
>>>
>> Terribly sorry for taking so long to answer this. What you said made
>> sense when I first read it, but now I'm not so sure.
>> A proposal is a body of text, and the distribution of proposals is
>> never defined, so the ordinary-language sense of the word is used.
>> That means that the first distribution of the proposal was successful,
>> meaning that the ID assignment was also successful. The only place
>> where the rules concern themselves about getting the author right is
>> the initiation of the decision. That means the first initiation
>> attempt failed due to wrong author and the second one failed due to me
>> not specifying the options and the vote collector.
>> The third attempt tried to change the previously assigned ID, which is
>> impossible, and then tried to initiate a decision of whether to adopt
>> a proposal that didn't exist. So in the end, the proposal "Pragmatize
>> strict ordering" never had a decision initiated regarding it.
>> CoE on the assessor's voting results: the decision about proposal 6546
>> never existed.
>
> CoE denied.  This falls apart at the beginning, as botched distribution
> no longer creates proposals.  Rule 106, relevant excerpts:
>
>      A proposal is a fixed body of text which has been made into a
>      proposal using a process specifically described in the Rules.
>
>      A player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a
>      body of text with a clear indication that it is intended to
>      become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal
>      Pool.
>
> Contrast with the corresponding relevant excerpt from 106/2 through /18:
>
>      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.
>
> which, independently of the "A player CAN create" clause, meant that an
> incorrectly-quoted proposal /was/ Platonically a proposal anyway (with
> no author) because it fit the "A proposal is" definition.
>

In that case, the first distribution, and thus the first ID
assignment, failed. The second ID assignment also failed due to a
wording mistake on my part. I wrote:

>This message serves to initiate, and assign an ID number to, the
>decision of whether to adopt the following proposal:

However, a decision can be initiated without an ID number being
assigned. What is required is that I publish the proposal with the
clear intent of distributing it, which initiates a decision. This
decision is in turn only initiated if a person authorized to initiate
it posts a notice saying so. That notice must include all essential
parameters.

First question is: is the promotor authorized to post such a notice?
Game custom assumes e is, but the language is confusing. The decision
must be initiated by the posting of a notice, but it also platonically
is initiated by the distribution of the proposal. One not unreasonable
interpretation is that there is no person who is authorized to
initiate the decision. (This is further confused by the initiation
being called a "means" of removing the proposal from the pool
(=distributing it) which messes up cause and effect a little.
Distribution causes initiation and removal, but the initiation causes
the removal...)

Second question: if the promotor can initiate decisions, did I at any
point succeed in doing so with P6546/8? The clear intent to distribute
was only present in the first try, which specified the wrong author.
The second try did publish it with a clear intent to initiate the
decision, but failed in any case to specify the valid options, so
nothing happened. The third try did publish the proposal (in a quote)
without clearly intending it to be distributed, so ID assignment 6548
failed too. I then went on to initiate the decision on proposal 6548,
which didn't exist, so in the end I probably haven't done anything.

The only possibility is if you read my third try as "I hereby initiate
the decision on whether to adopt [and at the same time I publish (it's
in the quote) and distribute] [the proposal I just referred to as]
proposal 6548", maybe even with an implicit ID assignment in there.

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

UNDETERMINED per CFJ 1769.

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