I appreciate the history and acknowledgment that my interpretation wasn't outlandish - as ADOP I'll get the Agoran Decisions for these going when I get back from vacation on Tuesday.
Reminder: Elections and the agoran decisions on who to elect are different concepts, though highly related. As such - V.J.Rada hasn't placed any votes yet on the elections. On Sun, Jul 2, 2017 at 07:57 omd <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I CFJ on V.J. Rada initiated three elections on 27 June > > > > Given that the number is currently unoccupied: > > > > This is CFJ 3533. I assign it to omd. > > > On 27 June, e indeed attempted to do so: > > Because I am rather bored, I initiate elections for Prime Minister, > Herald and Report or by announcement. > > The case turns on this clause of Rule 2154, describing a condition > under which elections can be initiated: > > 1. by announcement, if e is the ADoP, if the office has been > deputised for within the past two weeks, or if no election > has been initiated for the office either since the last time > a player won the game or within the past 90 days; > > In short, "if A, if B, or if C": there was debate over whether this > means "if A, [and] (if B or if C)", or just "if A, or if B, or if C". > > Grammatically, the latter seems more plausible, as "A, B, > [conjunction] C" is a standard way to write lists in English: the > conjunction is usually "and" but "or" works too. Two random examples > from different sources: > > "Use commas to separate three or more words, phrases, or clauses > in a series." > > "input source: The device, file, block, or other entity that > supplies characters to refill the input buffer." > > We don't usually write "A or B or C". When all the clauses start with > "if", we do sometimes write "if A, or if B, or if C", but "if A, if B, > or if C" is still grammatical and common. Indeed, it can arguably be > seen as more grammatically correct. Examples: > > "An ambiguous condition exists if fileid is invalid, if there is > an I/O exception reading fileid, or if an I/O exception occurs > while closing fileid." > > "CG_INVALID_PARAMETER_ERROR is generated if name is NULL or not > a valid identifier, if type is not a simple scalar, vector, or > matrix-type, or if nelements is not a positive number." > > Given that this construction is not only grammatically correct, but > arguably the 'most correct' way to express such a list, it would only > be reasonable to pick the alternate interpretation if the usual R217 > factors strongly favored it, e.g. if the rule didn't make sense > otherwise. In this case, the rule basically makes sense either way, > although under the "A and (B or C)" interpretation, where only the > ADoP can take advantage of that clause, the language seems somewhat > awkward to me. Usually we would prefer to say "The ADoP CAN initiate" > rather than "A player CAN initiate ... if e is the ADoP". That > applies to both interpretations, but under the "A and (B or C)" > interpretations, we could write something like > > An election generally CAN be initiated only for an elected > office for which no election is already in progress. > > The ADoP CAN initiate an election for a specified office by > announcement, if the office [...] > > Any player CAN initiate an election for a specified office by > announcement. > > ...whereas under the "A or B or C" interpretation, splitting each of > the enabling conditions (ADoP, deputised, no election recently, with 4 > support) into its own clause would result in 4 different paragraphs > repeating "initiate an election for a specified office", which feels > considerably more verbose than repeating it just twice. > > Anyway, that doesn't really matter, because there's a different R217 > factor strongly in favor of "A or B or C": game custom, in the form of > past versions of Rule 2154, along with what passes for legislative > history. The language in question dates back to 2009, when Proposal > 6411 inserted this text: > > A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office > for which no election is already in progress > > a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or the office is vacant, > or no election has been initiated for the office within 90 > days before the announcement; > > b) with 4 Supporters, otherwise. > > which unambiguously specifies "A or B or C". Later the rule was > amended to remove the "vacant" option, so it was down to just "A or > C"; then in 2014, Proposal 7658 was adopted: > > -- > ID: 7658 > Title: Election Danger > Author: scshunt > Adoption Index: 2 > > Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by replacing > a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or no election has been > initiated for the office within 90 days before the > announcement; > with > a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, if the office has been > deputised for within the past two weeks, or if no election has > been initiated for the office either since the last time a player > won the game or within the past 90 days; > > [Add two ways to shake up offices a bit more. A mad scramble for > elections after a win could be interesting and will possibly lower > incumbent advantage, since offices represent such a huge source of > points.] > -- > > The result is the same as the current version of the clause, except > with the old name for ADoP. > > The proposal annotation purports to "add two ways to shake up > offices". Under the "A or B or C" interpretation, it does add two > ways: 'office has been deputised for' and 'no election since last win' > (as opposed to in the last 90 days). Under the "A and (B or C)" > interpretation, it instead makes it much *more* difficult to shake up > offices, as now there are no conditions under which random players can > initiate elections by announcement. > > Knowing scshunt, there's a slight chance that the proposal annotation > was meant as intentional deception, as part of a scam. However, > scams, to be successful, need to be supported by exceptionally clear > language in the rules, because judges will typically try their best to > rule against them under various R217 grounds. A phrase which could be > interpreted perfectly well in the intended way, in addition to a > (hypothetically) scammy way, would be a very poor basis for a scam. > Thus I believe scshunt did not intend the proposal to be a scam: he > expected the text to be interpreted as "A or B or C", and so (of > course) did the other players who voted for it. > > Thus, game custom is also in favor of "A or B or C". I judge that > this is the correct interpretation. > > Finally, to check the facts: in the 30 days prior to 27 June, there > was an attempt to initiate elections for Secretary, Superintendent, > and Tailor, but no others. Prime Minister, Herald, and Reportor are > all elected offices, and I judge that V.J. Rada's typo in "Report or" > is insignificant. Finally, V.J. Rada appears to have been a player at > the time. > > TRUE. >
