Statement and Judgment
----------------------
CFJ 3972 states:
At least one person was appointed Speaker in the quoted message.
I judge this statement TRUE.
Opening
-------
Snail has attempted to appoint a series of players to Speaker with
support, pursuant to the following clause in Rule 103:
If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same
person for 90+ days, then any player CAN appoint another player to
the office with support.
In this CFJ I answer three challenges to this attempt to determine its
overall success.
Has the statement ever been true?
---------------------------------
This part is now trivial (tho it wasn't when the attempt was first made)
because G. has provided us evidence that D. Margaux was Speaker for at
least 90+ days in 2018-2019. The statement has, at least at one point,
been true.
Was this action correctly performed?
------------------------------------
In gratuitous arguments, ais523 asks whether tabled intents can be
performed without specifying the method of performance. If they can't
be, then this action failed regardless of if R103 allows it.
Rule 2125 specifies that regulated actions can only be performed "as
described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified
in the Rules" for the action. So we know that this action can only be
performed via a rule-defined method. According to Rule 1728, an intent
is tabled "by announcement [...] conspicuously and without obfuscation
specifying the action, the method (including non- default parameter
values), and optionally, conditions". It also defines "with support" as
a method. So to table a with-support intent, a person must specify that
it is with support. These conditions were clearly met by the original
intents.
(Note an interesting ambiguity here, which I do not believe impacts this
CFJ: "with support/objection/consent/notice" are defined as methods by
Rule 1728. However, the actual method for performing tabled actions is,
according to Rule 2124, "by announcement". These may be contradictions,
or it's possible that both of them are the method(s) of performing the
action.)
Rule 2124 is the rule that allows the actual performance of tabled
actions. This rule does not require specifying the method; it simply
enables performing them by announcement if all conditions are met. Since
specification is clearly required of the intent and absent from the
performance, I find that the performance does not require you to specify
the method of the tabled action. This action was correctly performed, if
it is possible.
Does Rule 103 allow this action?
--------------------------------
This question is the meat of the original challenge. The question is
whether "has been held continuously" is equivalent to "ever has been
held continuously" in this context. When this reading was first
discussed on discord, a few of us (myself included) rejected it.
However, others readily accepted it. These contradictory stances and the
silence of rules and past judgment on this question leads me to consider
current practice and the best interests of the game. It's worthwhile to
discuss other uses of the phrase in the rules.
Rule 911 states:
If a judgement has been in effect for less then seven days and has
not been entered into Moot, then:
Rule 2553 states:
If a CFJ about the effectiveness, possibility, or legality of a
change in the gamestate has been assigned a judgment of
PARADOXICAL continuously for between 7 and 90 days, then that
case's initiator, CAN, by announcement, Transcend Logic,
specifying that CFJ, provided that e has not already won the game
with respect to that CFJ. When a person transcends logic, e wins
the game.
It's worth noting that Rules 911 and 2553 clearly give maximum times. To
rule that a moot can be entered on day 10 because that necessarily means
it has been in effect for 6 days would contradict the obvious intention
of the rule. However, 3972 does not include a maximum time. This is true
in Rule 2438 as well:
White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
rulesets). A player who has been registered for at least 30 days
and has never acted on eir own behalf to cause another person to
gain a White Ribbon (including under a previous ruleset) CAN act
on eir own behalf to award a White Ribbon to another person by
announcement.
Here it may even be intentional and desirable that an old player can
re-register and give out their ribbon.
Some rules anticipate this ambiguity and provide extra verbiage to clarify.
Rule 2646:
If a player has been inactive continuously for the past 60 days,
then any player CAN deregister em without 3 objections. The
Registrar SHOULD attempt to deregister players who meet this
condition
Here "the past" clarifies previous intervals do not count.
Rule 1789:
Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously by
the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part of
it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled a
Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir
reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.
While it's unlikely a player may submit a CC for something e no longer
feels bad about, the use of "whenever" does theoretically limit it to
this time.
Clearly, some rules either provide context or explicit clarification to
avoid this ambiguity. Additionally, there's at least one instance where
the "ever has been" interpretation seems potentially desirable and intended.
As far as best interest of the rules go, there are arguments both to
allow this (because Agora should be permissive and it is an interesting
and fun action) and disallow this (because it may make it harder to
write and properly secure rules from scams in the future). However, to
me it seems that the concrete impact of allow creative play is more
important than the theoretical future harm.
I find that Rule 103, and any rule with similar wording, allows this
because it lacks explicit clarification or context intended to limit scope.
Conclusion
----------
Having answered all questions asked, I find this CFJ TRUE. I re-iterate
that context and clarification are important here. If a rule limits
performance via a maximum timeframe or condition then those should be
considered to limit performance to being within the given timeframe or
conditions exclusively. If it lacks this context, or explicitly includes
phrases such as "has ever been", then the more open interpretation can
be presumed.
--
nix
Herald, Collector, Registrar, Prime Minister
