On 7/31/2022 2:12 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 7/30/22 03:01, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 3:46 AM ais523 via agora-business <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> 8816~ secretsnail 3.05 No Duplication Allowed
>>> AGAINST, unnecessary and just clutters up the ruleset – this is already
>>> inherent in the meaning of the word "create"
>>>
>> It's not inherent, that's why this needs to be clarified. Otherwise people
>> might not think so unless they happen to read some cfj, or end up causing
>> one. I thought we were trying to avoid that.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 8817~ secretsnail 3.05 No Duplication Allowed
>>> CoE: This was not validly distributed because it was not in the
>>> proposal pool.
>>
>> response to CoE: CFJ, barring ais523: the proposal listed above was
>> distributed.
>>
>> Arguments FOR: The rules say I CAN do it, so creating the proposal should
>> have worked, and the distribution seems fine. There's no inherent inability
>> to create something that's already been created, and even if there was, the
>> rules still say you CAN do it which may override that, or maybe there's a
>> contradiction that arises because of this in the rules in which case the
>> Proposals rule may or may not take precedence. There's also the issue of
>> "the following proposal" not actually referring to a proposal, which may
>> make the "second creation" work as it isn't actually creating the same
>> proposal twice, but two separate proposals that have the following
>> attributes listed in the message of creation. I'm mainly calling this CFJ
>> because I want a more comprehensive argument than the last time this came
>> up in a CFJ, as that judgement left many points unaddressed, and there was
>> lengthy discussion afterwards that may be helpful for making this judgement
>> more complete.
>>
>>
>> Evidence:
>>
>> The purported double creation:
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg43032.html
>>
>> Rule 2350/16 (Power=3)
>> Proposals
>>
>> A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
>> other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement,
>> specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following
>> attributes:
>>
>> * An associated title.
>>
>> * A list of coauthors (which must be persons other than the
>> author).
>>
>> * An adoption index.
>>
>> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal
>> is created, its text, author, and AI cannot be changed. The author
>> (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person who submitted it.
>>
>> The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn.
>> retract, withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement.
>>
>
> The above is CFJ 3982.
>
> I assign CFJ 3982 to G. (favoured).
>
I judge CFJ 3982 as follows:
"Create" in the context of a game object means to bring into being
something that doesn't exist. For example, in R105/22, the "enactment" of
a rule is described without the use of the word "create". However, later
in the rule it says:
> This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
> created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
> a rule or cease to be a rule.
For Rule 105's last paragraph to function, we have to take "create" as a
synonym for "enact", and perform the logical test "does the rule already
exist? If so it's not an enactment but instead it's a modification". In
other words, we need to read into R105 the common sense meaning of
"create" so that it's not possible to enact/create an existing rule. I
think the use of "create" in reasonable common context is strong enough
that, if a rule were to enable the creation of an object that already
existed, it would have to be explicit at redefining the term (e.g. to say
'a X CAN be created even if it already exists' explicitly in the rule and
describe exactly what that means).
This is true for proposals as well. Any attempt to "create" a proposal by
referencing a previously-created proposal is either (1) a successful
attempt to create a new proposal with the same specified text and other
properties as the original proposal, but still being a unique new
proposal; or (2) a failed attempt to "create" something already created,
because you can't create already-existing things.
Whether a creation attempt falls into (1) or (2) is not an absolute but
rather contextual. In favor of (1), we generally allow shorthand and/or
obvious intent of saying "I create the following proposal" instead of "I
create a proposal with the following specified properties" so it pays to
be flexible when the author's intent is clear and unambiguous. However,
in favor of (2), if an explicit context is supplied that confuses the
issue ("I create a proposal that's the same proposal as the following one,
and is not a copy") that's enough to push it to failure, because the
intent required for by-announcement actions is either a different intent
or unclear.
In the quoted message, the caller is clearly setting up a situation where
e intends to try and create the same item twice. The first attempt
succeeds within our reasonable range of communication[0] (using "the
following proposal" instead of "a proposal with the following text").
However, contextually, the second attempt shows an expressed intent to
"re-create" the original rather than create a copy, so it's not possible
to do so.
Assuming "the proposal referenced above" refers to the entity labeled as
8817 in the quoted test, I find FALSE.
[
Not part of judgement: I think that under the current rules, "submit" is
most clearly read as a synonym for "adding a proposal to the proposal
pool" which is a consequence following on from creation (performable
through the method of creating a proposal) but is not the act of creation
itself. This would also mean that when a promotor adds a failed-quorum
proposal back to the proposal e is "submitting" it, and e may thus become
its author. In any case some legislative clarification is probably really
good here but it doesn't affect this particular case.
It's instructive to look at R1483/9 (circa 2003) as it found it necessary
to equate creation, submission, and "proposing" a proposal as well as
being clear that duplicate proposals were only created in separate
circumstances - maybe some of that text is useful?
Rule 1483/9 (Power=1)
Definition of Proposals
A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute
publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is
intended to become a Proposal. The collection of text becomes a
Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the
Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or
submitting a Proposal.
The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was
Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a
new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit
indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.
The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new
Proposals.
All Players are Legislators. A Player is Mute while e has more
than 5 Blots.
].
