On 1/25/20 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3788. I assign it to Jason Cobb. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3788 > > =============================== CFJ 3788 =============================== > > If the two documents quoted above were ratified, the first one > would have the effect of modifying the historical record twice and > the publicity switches of the relevant fora twice, in the manner > stated as interpretation a above. > > ========================================================================== > > Caller: Aris > Barred: Falsifian > > Judge: Jason Cobb > > ========================================================================== > > History: > > Called by Aris: 01 Jan 2020 07:02:48 > Assigned to Alexis: 12 Jan 2020 20:07:17 > Alexis recused: 19 Jan 2020 02:49:10 > Assigned to Jason Cobb: [now] > > ==========================================================================
A draft judgement since this is a complicated area of the game and I'm probably going to get this very wrong on the first try: In this judgement, I will use the "effective date" as listed in the document, and the "modification date" as "Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019". First, I find that Rule 1551's clause about "multiple substantially distinct possible modifications" being equally appropriate does not apply; I believe that exactly one of Falsifian's offered interpretations must be correct, and that would be more "appropriate" than the other interpretations. Rule 2162/13 states that: > "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a > given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of > exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to > X. Thus the document is equivalent to "At <time>, the instances of Publicity possessed by agora-official and agora-business both came to have the value Discussion." Rule 1551 states that the gamestate is "minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible". I find that it would be less true and accurate for only the history of the instances of the switch to be updated than for both the history and value to be updated. Thus, at the modification date, the two instances of Publicity were in fact flipped, and their values did change; this rules out interpretation c. However, I also find that changing the gamestate after the modification date is not required for the document to be true and accurate, and doing so would constitute additional changes besides the minimum modification required by Rule 1551. This applies both to Falsifian's suggested "then immediately after, became Public fora again" (from option b), and what the caller appears to be arguing for - changing all future values of the switches (until they are flipped again). Because ratification of the document in question does not the values of the switches immediately after the modification date, their values remain Public. As a consequence, by the definition of "flip" in Rule 2162, immediately after the modification date, the switches have been "flipped" back to Public, as the switches came to have a value of Public solely through a lack of change by ratification, which was different from their previous value of Discussion. The ratification of the document would have the effects specified in interpretation a, even if it would also have the effects specified in interpretation b. TRUE. -- Jason Cobb
