==============================  CFJ 2799  ==============================

    G. has published a Granulator's report containing the Fragment
    submitted by comex on or about 4 May 2010.

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

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           17 May 2010 20:18:12 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     22 May 2010 14:54:13 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 23 May 2010 08:46:36 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

comex "submitted a fragment" indicating, in words and by envelope
information, that it should be translated as an image (a .png image).  But
it appeared in the archives as a body of text.  G. republished said body
of text as part of the Granulator's report and there is (arguably?)
sufficient information in the report to display it in multiple ways,
including as text.  Has G. represented the fragment adequately to have it
be considered an accurate report of the fragment?  At issue is the
degree to which attachments must be translated or considered in any future
actions.  This might be counterfactual if attachments are held not to be
part of the body of an action/message (as with subject lines etc.) in
which case comex said e submitted a fragment, but didn't within the "body"
of the message.  This latter interpretation may be for the good of the
game: allowing attachments to contain actions opens up a bit of a can of
worms).

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

Caller's Evidence:

It is worth viewing these through the archives to see the issue at hand:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2010-May/0255
57.html
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-May/0077
54.html

Original message:

--001485f9a616fbc41c0485cbe32d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I submit the attached image as a Fragment.

--001485f9a616fbc41c0485cbe32d
Content-Type: image/png; name="awesome.png"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="awesome.png"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Attachment-Id: f_g8t9nqsp0

iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAVAAAAFQCAYAAADp6CbZAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAAAZiS0dE
AP8A/wD/oL2nkwAAAAlwSFlzAAALDgAACw4BQL7hQQAAYJNJREFUeNrtXQd4FFXXnvTee0KAJKQQ
khAIIRASSkIgQEJJDyIgAipFFAHpIE0QbKCgCAqKdARRuvTee5EaigooRQGRev57Jotf5Ifs7Mzs
7szuOc/zPv/zf5Itd+9959xT3sNxZGTymQODN0NlhhiGBIYUhsYMzRiyGHozvM3wJcNshm0MBzW4
wABa8FuZf7+R4VvNaw1h6Kp5D3yvdIZ6DDUZohkqMfgwONLPREZGZiyzYLBksGYIYGiuIcRPNGT2

[multiple lines deleted by CFJ caller for space]

MO7XnWEow2SuNB64jCutTf2FM26xP773BYbdDCsZvmCYyJXWX+Jnbq0hSnf6OcnIyIztsVppQgE+
Gu8Na1MzGLIZOnClYyaGMEzSkNkSDTZypRJtiM1cqbL68adwQPPfnvy7TZq/xfbWz7lS8ZVhmvfA
92qleW8UZgnnSqsRLMuAjEyy/R+DE2ESHP8eqwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
--001485f9a616fbc41c0485cbe32d--


Extract from report in question:

I deputize for the Granulator to publish the following Report and assign
ID numbers to fragments as follows:

1.  comex   (4 May 2010 18:03:56 -0400)
[see below for text of fragment]

...

[*text of 1 by comex]
iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAVAAAAFQCAYAAADp6CbZAAAABGdBTUEAALGPC/xhBQAAAAZiS0dE
AP8A/wD/oL2nkwAAAAlwSFlzAAALDgAACw4BQL7hQQAAYJNJREFUeNrtXQd4FFXXnvTee0KAJKQQ
khAIIRASSkIgQEJJDyIgAipFFAHpIE0QbKCgCAqKdARRuvTee5EaigooRQGRev57Jotf5Ifs7Mzs
7szuOc/zPv/zf5Itd+9959xT3sNxZGTymQODN0NlhhiGBIYUhsYMzRiyGHozvM3wJcNshm0MBzW4
wABa8FuZf7+R4VvNaw1h6Kp5D3yvdIZ6DDUZohkqMfgwONLPREZGZiyzYLBksGYIYGiuIcRPNGT2

[...same lines deleted...]

MO7XnWEow2SuNB64jCutTf2FM26xP773BYbdDCsZvmCYyJXWX+Jnbq0hSnf6OcnIyIztsVppQgE+
Gu8Na1MzGLIZOnClYyaGMEzSkNkSDTZypRJtiM1cqbL68adwQPPfnvy7TZq/xfbWz7lS8ZVhmvfA
92qleW8UZgnnSqsRLMuAjEyy/R+DE2ESHP8eqwAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
--001485f9a616fbc41c0485cbe32d--

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Almost all email clients support this format; the archive,
which does not, is not mentioned in the ruleset.  True, it is encoded
as a body of text, but bodies of text are encoded as series of numeric
bytes, and bytes are encoded with bits, and so on... and without an
actual requirement in the ruleset that messages be plain text, I don't
see why my image is not acceptable.  In fact, I'd say that I have the
R101 right to post any type of content I want to the fora, within
reasonable limits such as size.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Compare Rule 2291:

      A Fragment SHOULD be a short
      (possibly as small as a sentence) body of text intended to
      become a portion of a Rule.

with Rule 106:

      When creating proposals, the person who creates them SHOULD
      ensure that the proposal outlines[...]
...
      A player CAN create a proposal by publishing ("submitting") a
      body of text[...]

or Rule 2141:

      A rule's content
      takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.

In each of the latter cases, the entity is explicitly required to be
text, and in Rule 106, there is then a SHOULD regarding its content;
Rule 2291, however, only mentions text within the SHOULD.

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

Gratuitous Evidence by Murphy:

http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/image/awesome.png
(result of rendering the alleged fragment as an image)

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

The key to this CFJ is, I feel, not "is that fragment an image", but
"what information is needed to contain the whole of the fragment". Rule
754 allows the use of synonyms or abbreviations in any form of
communication; it fits both the spirit of the rule, and the letter at a
stretch, to presume that a text representation of an image, and the
image itself, are synonyms in a sense; they convey the same information
in different formats, but they have the same meaning.

comex sent eir Fragment to the public fora via email (considering that
all the public fora currently are email-based mailing lists, this was
not an implausible thing to do), using a relatively well-known encoding;
it is not unreasonable to suppose that any player knows, or could find
out, a way to convert the sequence of bytes that represented the
Fragment in question to an image. The mailing list archives, instead,
chose to convert that sequence of bytes to text; but this has the same
meaning, as the image and text are synonyms to each other.

Note that comex stated that "the attached image" was the Fragment; as a
result, we need to look at which part of the message in question was the
"attached image". Standard English usage, and the rules of email
encoding, imply it was the section of the message between
--001485f9a616fbc41c0485cbe32d and --001485f9a616fbc41c0485cbe32d, which
was specifically flagged as an attachment by comex (or more likely eir
email client, acting on eir instructions, but this has the same effect
as if comex had done it by hand), by the instruction
{{{Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="awesome.png"}}}. That
instruction seems to be metadata that's part of the email, not part of
the Fragment. There are other instructions there in that section too,
though, which arguably are part of the Fragment: the lines
{{{Content-Type: image/png; name="awesome.png"}}} and
{{{Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64}}} together specify the mechanism
of decoding the sequence of characters that follow into an image,
together with its filename. These are an essential part of the
Fragment's meaning; comex has effectively sent us a sequence of bytes
that represent an encoded image, together with a key to decode them.

Therefore, I conclude that G's report did /not/ contain the entire
Fragment. E published the lines that contained the 'data part' of the
Fragment, together with a separator line that was in the original
message, but not part of the Fragment at all; but e did not publish the
metadata that was also part of the same Fragment.

Therefore, I rule CFJ 2799 FALSE. G.'s approach would have been
sufficient to publish the Fragment in question, but e left parts of it
out of eir report, and failed to publish it on that basis. Sufficient
would have been to publish the following lines:
{{{
Content-Type: image/png; name="awesome.png"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="awesome.png"
}}}
together with the large block of base64 that encoded the data of the
image. Likewise sufficient would have been to publish any synonym of
this, e.g. the block of base64 with a note saying "this is a
base64-encoded PNG image named awesome.png", or an actual image
(somehow), or the same image in another format (so long as all metadata
was retained), etc. But in order to fulfil eir duty to publish the
Fragment, e must publish the whole thing (in any format e chooses -
text, image, or otherwise - so long as decoding it is not an
unreasonable burden), rather than just publishing most of it.

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