Re: DIS: Request for Feedback: What's the Method Anyway?
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 10:48 PM, nix via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all
> of the arguments there.
>
> I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires
> an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for
> changing the rule". For rule changes in proposals, what would you say is
> "the method", according to the rules? What would be a 1 sentence
> "unambiguous and clear specification" of that method?
>
> --
> nix
I raised this on Discord, but on list for posterity: I’m starting
to think it’s “by proposal”.
“By proposal”, as a method of doing something, is a term that Agorans
use fairly frequently. By way of a few examples: the Herald reports
wins by proposal, the Tailor’s quick reference says black ribbons
can be gained by proposal. Even more convincingly, 2575/3 reads, in
part: {
The holder [of Distributor] CANNOT be changed except without
objection or by proposal.
}
Which implies fairly strongly that “by proposal” is the same sort
of thing as “without objection”, namely a method.
And I think there’s a reasonable argument that, by labelling a
potential rule change as a “proposal”, the distribution message
has specified the rule change alongside the mechanism of “by
proposal”.
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Request for Feedback: What's the Method Anyway?
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 3:49 PM nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all > of the arguments there. > > I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires > an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for > changing the rule". For rule changes in proposals, what would you say is > "the method", according to the rules? What would be a 1 sentence > "unambiguous and clear specification" of that method? > > -- > nix > > "When a proposal is adopted, it becomes an instrument and takes effect." "The method to implement the rule changes is rule 105." either of those I think. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Request for Feedback: What's the Method Anyway?
This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all of the arguments there. I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule". For rule changes in proposals, what would you say is "the method", according to the rules? What would be a 1 sentence "unambiguous and clear specification" of that method? -- nix
Re: DIS: Re: (@arbitor, @referee) Re: BUS: A lie
On 3/12/24 14:39, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 14:29 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> Or, in the alternative, based on the authority Rule 2125, Rule 2471 >> prohibits sending a message with certain attributes, and that is what >> the infraction is. So, the infraction isn't contained within the message >> in any case. Thus, even if all infractions are judged to be game >> actions, whether or not sending the message was an infraction has no >> bearing on whether the message *contained* a game action. So, the >> message does not contain any game actions and the statement is FALSE. > Something I'm confused about (and which is relevant to me because I > need to make a ruling as Referee): I think it's undisputed that rule > 2125 allows the rules to prohibit the sending of messages even if doing > so is not an action (it says that very explicitly). However, it is less > clear whether rule 2471 actually makes use of that permission; it says > "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie.", and "SHALL > NOT" is defined (by rule 2152) as "Performing the described action > violates the rule in question." > > If rule 2471 is therefore read as "It is a violation of this rule to > perform the action of making a public statement that is a lie", it > therefore matters whether or not the making of the statement is an > action, because rule 2471 criminalises only statements that are > actions, not statements that are not actions. I don't dispute that sending the message is an "action", but even so it doesn't have to be a "game action". > For what it's worth, I'm currently leaning (based on the above > expansion) towards a reading in which rule 2471 defines lying to be an > unregulated action that is nonetheless a rules violation (rule 2125 > states that the rules cannot proscribe unregulated actions, except for > the sending of public messages, so this is not a violation of rule > 2125). But I'd be interested in feedback from other players in this > respect. > I wrote the R2125 clause, and that's the intent, yes. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: (@arbitor, @referee) Re: BUS: A lie
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 11:29 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/12/24 03:51, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > > >> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:46 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >> I confirm, under penalty of no faking, this message contains a game > action. > >> > >> -- > >> snail > > I note that snail committed the infraction of breaking Rule 2471 (No > Faking) in the above quoted message. > > > Regardless of how the CFJ is judged, snail is guilty. Based on eir > arguments, e believed the statement e made to be paradoxical and thus > "not true". > Arguments TRUE: Under penalty of no faking, it purported to contain a game action. Their CFJ has no such no-faking associated with it. The CFJ is simply not paradoxical, it is instead simply TRUE. Per rule 101: Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. As such, communication is their game action and/or a result of their actions via Fora in order to play the game. I believe there are no results presented in their original message, thus, it is a game action. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
DIS: Re: (@arbitor, @referee) Re: BUS: A lie
On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 14:29 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > Or, in the alternative, based on the authority Rule 2125, Rule 2471 > prohibits sending a message with certain attributes, and that is what > the infraction is. So, the infraction isn't contained within the message > in any case. Thus, even if all infractions are judged to be game > actions, whether or not sending the message was an infraction has no > bearing on whether the message *contained* a game action. So, the > message does not contain any game actions and the statement is FALSE. Something I'm confused about (and which is relevant to me because I need to make a ruling as Referee): I think it's undisputed that rule 2125 allows the rules to prohibit the sending of messages even if doing so is not an action (it says that very explicitly). However, it is less clear whether rule 2471 actually makes use of that permission; it says "A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie.", and "SHALL NOT" is defined (by rule 2152) as "Performing the described action violates the rule in question." If rule 2471 is therefore read as "It is a violation of this rule to perform the action of making a public statement that is a lie", it therefore matters whether or not the making of the statement is an action, because rule 2471 criminalises only statements that are actions, not statements that are not actions. For what it's worth, I'm currently leaning (based on the above expansion) towards a reading in which rule 2471 defines lying to be an unregulated action that is nonetheless a rules violation (rule 2125 states that the rules cannot proscribe unregulated actions, except for the sending of public messages, so this is not a violation of rule 2125). But I'd be interested in feedback from other players in this respect. -- ais523 Referee
Re: DIS: Re: [Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4072 to nix [Re: BUS: [CFJ] Another R105 CFJ]
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 3:04 PM, nix via agora-discussion > wrote: > > I haven't started drafting, but not sure I quite agree with this. A rule > change is defined as "any effect that falls into the above classes", so > the "full text" would be the full text of the change. Your reading seems > like it'd make more sense if 105 said "the full text of the changed > rules" or something to the effect. Ah yes, good point. It’s a little weird because an “effect” is an an abstract thing that doesn’t really have text, per se - there are lots of ways to describe the same amendment. But I think you’re right that this isn’t a game- breaking problem, even if the wording could be improved. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: [Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4072 to nix [Re: BUS: [CFJ] Another R105 CFJ]
On 3/12/24 09:28, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > 105 requires us to publish the “full text” of a rule change. What > is that? > > Clearly what was intended is “a full description of the change to > be made”, that feels like a somewhat counterintuitive interpretation. > It seems like the literal meaning here would be that the full amended > text of the rule be published 4 days before. I haven't started drafting, but not sure I quite agree with this. A rule change is defined as "any effect that falls into the above classes", so the "full text" would be the full text of the change. Your reading seems like it'd make more sense if 105 said "the full text of the changed rules" or something to the effect. -- nix
Re: DIS: CFJ 4062 draft-judged TRUE
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:39 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > >> On Mar 9, 2024, at 6:37 PM, nix via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> On 1/28/24 00:59, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> I CFJ: "Proposal 9051, as part of its effect, applied a rule change." >>> >> >> I number this CFJ 4062. I assign CFJ 4062 to Gaelan. > > This is a draft judgement, as I haven’t done this in a while and would > like assurance I’m not utterly off-base. *taps earpiece* I have been informed that I was utterly off-base. Specifically, I was looking at the post-patch version of 105. Anyway, I think the thrust of my ruling is still true: even without the patch, the proposal text wasn’t ambiguous, as there was only one possible interpretation. Gaelan
DIS: CFJ 4062 draft-judged TRUE
> On Mar 9, 2024, at 6:37 PM, nix via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/24 00:59, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: "Proposal 9051, as part of its effect, applied a rule change."
>>
>
> I number this CFJ 4062. I assign CFJ 4062 to Gaelan.
This is a draft judgement, as I haven’t done this in a while and would
like assurance I’m not utterly off-base.
I find TRUE.
First, I note that a separate ongoing CFJ (4072) considers the
possibility that this proposal, among many others, may have been
prevented from causing rule changes due to deficiencies in its
distribution. I’ll leave that possibility to Judge nix (to whom I offer
my deepest condolences), and disregard it in this judgement.
With that out of the way:
Most actions in Agora are done by sending a message meeting criteria,
for example the famous requirement to “set[] forth intent ... clearly
and unambiguously” to perform an action by announcement. If this were
an action by announcement, my task would be to find the criteria, and
determine if the message in question met them.
But proposals do not take actions by announcement. Instead, rule 106/46
reads: {
When a proposal takes effect, the proposal applies the changes that
it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other rules.
}
So if a proposal says something happens, the presumption is that *it
happens.* The only reason it wouldn’t is if a rule explicitly prevents
it from doing so. So, what could prevent this?
The only thing I see that comes close - other than the four-day rule,
which is being debated elsewhere - is this paragraph of 105/24: {
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. [...] Furthermore, if the
change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
on its face.
}
I don’t think the change is ambiguous in the ordinary sense of the
term: I don’t think there’s any plausible interpretation other than
appending the text at the end of the bulleted list. But 105 goes on,
clarifying that a specification is not ambiguous so long as it would
be clear to “any reasonable player”, even if incorrect or unclear on
its face. So I think it’s quite clear that the above provision does
not prevent this change from taking place.
As nothing prevents the change from taking place, it does.
Gaelan
DIS: Re: [Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4072 to nix [Re: BUS: [CFJ] Another R105 CFJ]
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:31 AM, nix via agora-business > wrote: > > On 3/11/24 19:16, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> I CFJ: "There exists an entity that is a Rule with ID number 2687." > > I number this CFJ 4072. Unfortunately, I assign CFJ 4072 to nix. > > -- > nix > A related and unfortunate question: 105 requires us to publish the “full text” of a rule change. What is that? Clearly what was intended is “a full description of the change to be made”, that feels like a somewhat counterintuitive interpretation. It seems like the literal meaning here would be that the full amended text of the rule be published 4 days before. Gaelan
