From - Fri Aug 25 17:28:26 2000 Status: R Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by niles.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id sqbijj.va6.37kbi1o for ; Thu, 24 Aug 2000 21:22:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id BAA02537 for agora-discussion-list; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:16:09 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 BAA02534 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:16:06 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA10304 for ; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:20:09 +1000 (EST) Received: from silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au(130.194.1.91) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma010302; Fri, 25 Aug 00 11:20:06 +1000 Received: (from gardner@localhost) by silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA13860 for agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:17:23 +1000 (EST) From: Steve Gardner Message-Id: <200008250117.LAA13860@silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au> Subject: DIS: Repost of CFJ 1112 To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 11:17:22 +1000 (EST) In-Reply-To: <39A5C387.13D43A3C@mindspring.com> from "Joshua Boehme" at Aug 24, 2000 08:53:27 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by silas-1.cc.monash.edu.au id LAA13860 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au id BAA02535 Sender: owner-agora-discussion@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: sqbijj.va6.37kbi1o Joshua Boehme wrote: > >> - CFJ 1112 >> - CFJ 1125 Appelate Decision >> - CFJ 1169 > >These are incomplete or missing in the archive. Elysion, I'm sure I sent this to you some months ago. But anyway, here it is again. ========================================================================== 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. ========================================================================== Called by: Steve Judge: Ørjan Judgement: TRUE Judge selection: Eligible: Andre, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Kolja A., lee, Macross, Murphy, Ørjan, Peekee Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Morendil Had their turn: - Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: - ========================================================================== History: Called by Steve: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:08:24 +1100 Assigned to Oerjan: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:37:44 +1100 Judged TRUE by Ørjan: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:04:16 +0100 Judgement published: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 10:23:38 +1100 ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: The truth of the Statement almost, but not quite, follows directly from R1483, which states that: A Proposal is created whenever a Proposing Entity delivers some collection of text to the Public Forum with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text thus delivered is a new Proposal, and the Proposing Entity which delivered it its Proposer. A collection of text is said to be Proposed when it becomes a Proposal. But R1483 only talks about Proposal *creation*, not about Proposal *submission*. Nevertheless, armed with the distinction in R1483 between collections of text on the one hand, and Proposals on the other, it is only a short step to the truth of the Statement. One need only consider the absurd consequences of denying the truth of the Statement. If we denied it, and held instead that merely sending a collection of text to the PF is sufficient for submitting a Proposal, then in a case like the one which inspired this CFJ, in which Morendil provably has sent to the Public Forum a collection of text intended to become a Proposal, but which equally provably did not reach the Public Forum, we should have to say that although Morendil submitted a Proposal, there is no Proposal which Morendil submitted, since a Proposal is only created when the text is delivered to the PF. That seems to me to be an untenable view. ========================================================================== Judge's Arguments: 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. ========================================================================== Evidence attached by the Judge: 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.) -- Steve Gardner | Appearances to the contrary, Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | things are just what they seem. gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au |