DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3893 Assigned to Gaelan

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official 
> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> The below CFJ is 3893.  I assign it to Gaelan.
> 
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3893
> 
> ===============================  CFJ 3893  ===============================
> 
>      There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.
> 
> ==========================================================================
> 
> Caller:                        Jason
> 
> Judge:                         Gaelan
> 
> ==========================================================================
> 
> History:
> 
> Called by Jason:                                  18 Jan 2021 17:22:34
> Assigned to Gaelan:                               [now]
> 
> ==========================================================================
> 
> Caller's Arguments:
> 
> Assigning a rule number appears to be a regulated action, as its
> performance is "limited" by Rules 2141 and 2140 (since Rule numbers are
> explicitly made substantive aspects of Rules, and Rules are
> instruments). No Rule provides an explicit mechanism by which to set the
> number of a Rule. Therefore, under Rule 2125, there is no mechanism to
> assign rule numbers to rules (except by proposal most likely). Even if a
> mechanism such as by annoucement were to be inferred, the standard for
> by announcement has not been met, as the Rulekeepor has never announced
> that e is assigning, e has only published rulesets with the numbers
> labeled.
> 
> 
> Caller's Evidence:
> 
> Rule 2141/14 (Power=3.1)
> Role and Attributes of Rules
> 
>      A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1
>      and 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
>      IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to
>      change the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside
>      this range. The set of all currently-existing rules is called the
>      ruleset.
>            Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
>      former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
>            Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a rule
>      ever does not have a title, then the Rulekeepor CAN and SHALL
>      assign a title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.
>            For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>      the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>      substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary
>      notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
>      elsewhere in this rule.
> 
> 
> Rule 2140/4 (Power=3)
> Power Controls Mutability
> 
>      Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
>      the power of this rule can
>            1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
>            2. adjust the power of a statute with power greater than its own.
>            3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
>         with power greater than its own except as otherwise provided
>         in this rule. A "substantive" aspect of a statute is any
>         aspect that affects the statute's operation.
>            An ephemeral instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations
>      specified in rules of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides
>      those prohibition(s) as provided for in other rules.
> 
> 
> Rule 2125/12 (Power=3)
> Regulated Actions
> 
>      An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
>      limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2)
>      that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would
>      succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify
>      information for which some person bound by that body of law is
>      required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
>            If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
>      doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
>      from being performed except as described within it, including by
>      limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
>      within it. A body of law does not proscribe any action which it
>      does not regulate.
> 
> ==========================================================================

Bah, I'm overdue on this.

I'll try to get to it in a few days, but in the meantime I'll put some thoughts 
and initial research down so I can get feedback:

This appears to last have been litigated in CFJ 2981: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2981 
<https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2981>.

It was judged TRUE (i.e. rule numbers work) on a loophole in the working. A 
follow-up proposal (P6992 by Murphy and omd, reproduced below) removed that 
loophole and attempted to make rule numbers work without it. The relevant parts 
of rule 2141 (now /14) haven't changed since.

So legislative intent is very explicitly for this to work. Presumably, the 
authors expected this to work as follows (quoting from 2141/14):

- "However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule 
aspects as described elsewhere in this rule."
- "Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and former rules, 
to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor."
- Therefore, the Rulekeepor CAN "assign" ID numbers to rules.

The question, then, is whether this sufficiently specifies a method for setting 
the ID number. I'm tempted to argue that "assign" is a sufficient method, and 
that the rulekeepor assigns the ID numbers when e publishes a ruleset 
containing them. But that's admittedly somewhat shaky.

Also, it's worth considering the consequences of this being false:
- Some last-resort precedence stuff might not have worked
- And proposals that amend or repeal rules solely based on ID number might not 
work. (But they still could work, because the fact that there is only one rule 
purported to have an ID number makes it clear what rule the proposal refers to, 
even if the number technically hasn't been assigned, so there is no real 
ambiguity.)

Regardless of my ruling, it wouldn't hurt to pass a proposal saying "give each 
rule the ID number given to it in the last SLR", and clean up the wording to 
make this clearly work.

Gaelan

---

Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
(coauth: omd)
Fix rule numbers

Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
14:40:44 -0500.

Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
with "set or modify".

Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
text:

      Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
      strictly ordered.

      Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
      rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
      a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.

      For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
      the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
      substantive aspects of the rule.

with this text:

      Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.

      Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
      rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign
      a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.

      For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
      the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
      substantive aspects of the rule.  However, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
      elsewhere in this rule.