status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3806
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3806 ===============================
In the attached message, I submitted a public petition to the
ADoP, as described by Rule 2143.
==========================================================================
Caller: twg
Judge: Gaelan
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by twg: 30 Jan 2020 01:37:47
Assigned to Gaelan: 09 Feb 2020 08:54:29
Judged FALSE by Gaelan: 09 Feb 2020 20:54:54
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
I wrote:
> Gaelan wrote:
>> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
>
> Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
> wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
> rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
> under Economy.
>
> Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
> absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
>
> -twg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gaelan's Arguments:
According to the H. Rulekeepor’s GitHub repository, rule 2143/31 reads, in
part: { If an office has a discretionary power, and a player publicly
petitions the officer to apply that power in a specific case or manner,
the officer SHALL publicly respond in a timely fashion. }
2143/31 does not state that petitions are made by announcement, so
478/37’s "unambiguously and clearly” standard does not apply.
The word “publicly” is not defined, but is used throughout the ruleset, so
I think it’s safe to say that game custom implies it means “in a public
message,” as defined by rule 478/37. It is the opinion of The Court that
we might want to explicitly define that at some point. Anyway, the message
in question was sent to BUS, so we do meet that standard.
That leaves us with the meaning of “petition.” “Petition” is defined
nowhere in the ruleset, therefore the text is “silent” (217/12) and we
fall to the "four factors” of "game custom, common sense, past judgements,
and consideration of the best interests of the game.”
A search of the archives since 2002 for the keyword “petition” reveals no
sign of game custom; the word “petition” has never been part of any rule
other than the new text in 2143/31 and its predecessor as a Herald-
specific mechanism, and neither mechanic appears to have seen any use. The
word has, from time to time, been used in an informal sense in keeping
with its common definition; I’ll get to that.
The H. Arbitor’s CFJ archive does have some cases including the keyword
“petition,” but they all refer to pre-2002 mechanics of “petitioner”
(which appears to be analogous to a modern-day finger-pointer or a Caller
of a CFJ) and “petition fee” (which appears to be a fee required to create
a proposal). Both of these terms have specific meanings distinct from the
meaning of a “petition” in general, so they are not relevant here.
With no indication that game custom or past judgement gives “petition” a
unique Agoran meaning, common sense would dictate that “petition” has its
conventional English definition. Therefore, I surveyed a few dictionaries:
The Merriam-Webster dictionary (on their website) defines “petition” (as a
verb) as {
to make a request to (someone)
especially: to make a formal written request to (an authority)
}
The Oxford Dictionary of [British] English (as reproduced in Apple’s
Dictionary app) defines “petition” (as a verb) as {
present a petition [in turn, defined as "a formal written request,
typically one signed by many people, appealing to authority in respect of
a particular cause”] to (an authority) in respect of a particular cause:
the organization is petitioning the EU for a moratorium on the patent |
[with object and infinitive]
- make an appeal to (a deity or superior)
- (Law) make a formal application to (a court) for a writ, judicial action
in a suit, etc.
}
The New Oxford American Dictionary (as reproduced in Apple’s Dictionary
app) defines “petition” (as a verb) as {
make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a
particular cause
- make a solemn or humble appeal to (a figure of authority)
- (Law) make a formal application to (a court) for a writ, judicial action
in a suit, etc.
}
Wiktionary defines “petition” (as a verb) as {To make a request to,
commonly in written form}. It defines “petition” (as a noun) as {
1. A formal, written request made to an official person or organized body,
often containing many signatures.
2. A compilation of signatures built in order to exert moral authority in
support of a specific cause.
3. (law) A formal written request for judicial action.
4. A prayer; a supplication; an entreaty.
}
The first three dictionaries all seem to imply that, in some or most
cases, a petition must be “formal.” Wiktionary doesn’t in its verb
definition, but does in its noun definition. While Webster does leave open
the possibility that a petition need not be formal, the use of the word
“especially” seems to apply that one generally is. Therefore, I find that
the common English definition of “petition” implies a formal request. This
is also consistent with the occasional Agoran usage, such as proposal 8132
(“Website Ruleset Update Petition”) which, in a very formal tone, states
that { NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that it is THE WILL OF AGORA that
the Honorable Rulekeepor update the main ruleset linked from the Agoran
website each time e releases an SLR, and that e additionally post a copy
of the official FLR on the website }.
The word “formal” itself is vague, but I believe that common sense
dictates that a formal request would, at minimum, make clear that it is a
formal request. Twg’s message does not meet that standard. For the sake of
clarity, I do not intend to imply anything about what a “formal request”
does entail, other than that it must identify itself as such;
specifically, I do not find that petitions must be as formal as the
proposal quoted above.
Finally, this is consistent with the best interests of the game: because a
petition imposes an obligation on the officer being petitioned, it should
be held to a reasonably high standard of clarity to avoid imposing
obligations without the officer's awareness.
I judge 3806 FALSE.
==========================================================================
