From - Fri Mar 17 15:39:35 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by osgood.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sd4qvv.35n.30ahi43 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:31:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id RAA27278 for agora-official-list; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:13:00 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA27275 for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 17:12:56 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id EAA71991 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2000 04:27:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from msuacad.morehead-st.edu(147.133.1.1) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma071989; Sat, 18 Mar 00 04:27:17 +1100 Received: (from mpslon01@localhost) by msuacad.morehead-st.edu (8.7.1/8.7.1) id MAA01535 for agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:12:24 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Slone Message-Id: <200003171712.MAA01535@msuacad.morehead-st.edu> Subject: OFF: CFJ 1204 Judged FALSE To: agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (agora-official) Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 12:12:23 EST X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 212.4] Sender: owner-agora-official@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: sd4qvv.35n.30ahi43 ============================== CFJ 1204 ============================== A message that is sent to the email address of a Public Forum but not distributed to any Players has not been sent to a Public Forum. ======================================================================== Called by: t Judge: lee Judgement: FALSE Judge selection: Eligible: Anthony, Blob, Chuck, Murphy, Oerjan, Peekee, Sherlock, Wes, elJefe, harvel, lee Not eligible: Caller: t Barred: - Had eir turn: Crito, Elysion, Palnatoke, Steve, t Already served: - Defaulted: Harlequin By request: Michael On Hold: Novalis, Palnatoke Zombie: Schneidster ======================================================================== History: Called by t 16 Mar 2000 12:40:07 +0200 (EET) Assigned to lee: 16 Mar 2000 17:59:13 -0500 Judged FALSE by lee: 16 Mar 2000 22:40:57 -0600 Judgement published: As of this message ======================================================================== Caller's Motion (denied by lee): I also submit a motion pertaining to this CFJ, asking the Judge of the CFJ, to issue an Order to Annotate Rule 478 with the statement of this CFJ. ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Rule 478 defines the Public Forum in an ambiguous manner. This ambiguity is resolved by CFJ 1112 which states that the entities called Public Fora are public spaces and thus include not only the mailing list software but also the Players. Rule 478 does include the Players in the definition with the following statement: "It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum." Common sense dictates that this sentence should not be interpreted as forcing the Players to have responsibility over such technical issues as mailing list software. The following statement included in Rule 478 is important to this CFJ: "The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum." While it may be argued that this definition guarantees messages sent to the email address of a mailing list serving as a Public Forum the legal significance of being sent to a Public Forum, this argument fails to account for the wording of Rule 478. The fact that the Rule uses the word "receive" makes it clear that if a mailing list functioning as a Public Forum receives a message and sends it to a Player who doesn't receive it because of technical problems, the message is still legally sent to a Public Forum as defined by the Rule. What then, if a message that has been sent to the email address of a mailing list serving as a Public Forum is not received by any Players? Clearly, this is not a temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum but the temporary inability of the mailing list software to distribute the Public Forum. The act of sending a message to an email address doesn't necessarily have the legal significance of the message being sent to a Public Forum, if the message doesn't reach the Public Forum, provided that we accept that, as the arguments of CFJ 1112 state, the Public Fora do include Players. A message becomes a message sent to a Public Forum only if it is received by all Active Players who have ensured that they will receive the messages sent to an email address which has been designated as a Public Forum, not including those Players who don't receive the message due to a temporary inability on their end. Therefore I ask the prospective Judge to return eir verdict after considering the Rules, my arguments, the attached evidence and the best interests of the game. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Steve Gardner wrote: > ========================================================================== > CFJ 1112 > > In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it > is not sufficient that a collection of text "with the clear indication > that that text is intended to become a Proposal" (R1483) merely be > sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text > must also be received in the Public Forum. > > ========================================================================== [snip] After deliberating the meaning of "received in the Public Forum", I have come to the conclusion that this term, while it can be interpreted either when considering the PF (R478) as a medium (or approximately, channel), or also when considering the Public Forum as an abstract public space (presumably containing the Players), requires an implicit recipient or recipients different from the Public Forum itself. While delivery to the Public Forum implies receipt _by_ the Public Forum, it is not therefore clear that it implies receipt _in_ the Public Forum. I think this rests exactly upon the dichotomy between medium/channel (which would, in our current situation, consist mainly of the mailing list and its software, possibly including the list administrator) and public space (which would include the Players, except those with temporary connection problems). Which should be used in the current situation? I believe that the latter would be in the best interest of the game, as it allows us to liberate the Public Forum from technical issues and to consider a message to be received only when it has been received by people, which gives accountability. However, it remains to argue that this is consistent with the definition provided of Public Forum in Rule 478. The way the Rule is written, I interpret it as taking a medium/channel and vesting upon it the property of also being a public space. This does, I believe, require that we consider the word "Public Forum" to be more than an arbitrary name tag and to imply that the entities described in Rule 478 do become fora, in the common language sense. I think this is an admissible interpretation. Given this, I conclude that receipt by and receipt in the Public Forum are equivalent. I further agree with the remainder of the argument provided by the Caller, and find the statement TRUE. Rule 478/9 (Power=1) The Public Forum Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, the message annoucing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.) It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. Whenever the Rules calls upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise (The current version is probably a nearly identical 478/10, amended by Spring Cleaning.) Greetings, Ørjan. Rule 478/10 (Power=1) The Public Forum Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, the message announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.) It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. Whenever the Rules call upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise. ======================================================================== Judge lee's Arguments: I judge this statement False. First, on the surface we have the normal use of language. To send something means to send it, it does not matter if it was received. The two are quite distinct. The plots of many shows revolve around this point. But since Agorans like lots of reasons let me present a couple of me angles. The Statement that i am ruling on is roughly equivalent to: A check that is mailed to the address of your electric company but not applied to your account has not been sent to your electric company. I can tell you from firsthand knowledge that the above is false. I have even sent checks to pay bills, had the checks received by the company, deposited at the bank, but not forwarded to the proper individuals in accounts receivable to have my account adjusted. Obviously, this was a case where the check was sent to the company, but not delivered to the proper recipients. Nobody can successfully argue that I did not send the check It took several letters to make the company see the light, but eventually they acknowledged that I had sent the payment. Let's look at an Agoran example close to the one above. Instead of the different departments, there are different sets of people, Watchers and Players. Let's say that the registrar's report lists the public forum's address. Several watchers and all players are subscribed to that mail list. Now let's say that through some clever hacking all Player's were unsubscribed from that list without their knowledge. Some one then sends a message to that list. It is distributed to the Watchers but not to the Players. Just as my check went to who knows what department, rather than accounts receivable. Would the message sent to the address of the public forum and received by all the watchers have been sent to the Public forum? I think so. A watcher could produce the headers to prove it too. Unfortunately we don't have the headers in this case. It doesn't change the fact that the messages were sent to the public forum. ======================================================================== Judge lee's Evidence: ======================================================================== -- Michael Slone - http://vir.fclib.org/~harvel/ I think the issue is that Wes purports to be plural. -- Kelly, in agora-discussion