I think Agora we would be ok with the intuition on this one just in
terms of grammar, except we've given very specific different legal meanings
between a rule doing something and a person doing something as authorized by
a rule, due to our instruments and power system. So there's a CFJ history
(not sure how it started) of distinguishing "a Player CAN do X by
announcement" versus "a Player CAN cause this Rule to do X by announcement"
depending on whether or not a powered instrument is required to make the
change.
On 6/10/2019 12:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes.
It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just
intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be out of
bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds in Agora,
and I'm not sure why that is either.
On Jun 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
Interesting catch.
It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
"except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
knowledge.
On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has neither
gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current Agoran week."
Caller's Evidence ================= Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots") [Power=2]
Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
restricted to persons.
[...]
To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
[...]
If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
emself by announcement.
Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
Caller's Arguments
==================
I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself, then e is the
one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot CANNOT be destroyed, as it was
not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other than [Rule 2577], specifically
addressing the destruction of indestructible assets or that asset in particular",
but rather by the Player.
I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the definition of an
asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to
Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus
the conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence between
Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence. In this case
that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be destroyed.
I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
[NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will withdraw this. I
didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible" assets, and the ones that
I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was unable to find precedent on conflicts
with definitions solely by searching the statements of CFJs.]
