Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
On 7/5/2020 5:22 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is >>> clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so >>> in conjunction with other rules. >> >> To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative >> process. > > Well, it’s not like the question is whether to rule “the scam is contrary > to intent, therefore it doesn’t work”. *That* would be a judicial > intrusion into the legislative process. But with Rule 2626, the question > is merely whether to allow certain proposals to enter the legislative > process without a fee. Since they still have to be voted on, I’d argue > that concerns about intrusion into the legislative process are at their > nadir. Fair enough. >> Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to >> the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to >> create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. > > I'd say that adding the ability to create one’s own blots allowed Rule 2499 > (Welcome Packages) to operate in a way contrary to legislative intent and > common sense, even if that rule was not actually amended at that point. > After all, even aside from the general legislative intent against scams, > Welcome Packages are clearly intended to be a limited resource rather than > an infinite spring of riches. > > But even if we assume that Rule 2555 (Blots) is the one operating in a way > contrary, Rule 2626 doesn’t say that a patch proposal must therefore amend > Rule 2555. Regardless of which rule is at fault, “Welcome Package Patch” > did “rectify” the “situation", and arguably did so minimally, since any > other type of patch would probably have a larger impact on game mechanics. This is a good point - in particular, I remember considering the proposal that added that ability to Blots - quite recently - and remember asking "this seems like a weird power and prone to abuse" and there was a brief discussion about why it was being done. Don't remember if that was during voting or beforehand. Anyway, you're right, it seems worth addressing how legislative intent works or is inferred when creating one thing (accidentally but directly) breaks another. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so in conjunction with other rules. To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative process. Well, it’s not like the question is whether to rule “the scam is contrary to intent, therefore it doesn’t work”. *That* would be a judicial intrusion into the legislative process. But with Rule 2626, the question is merely whether to allow certain proposals to enter the legislative process without a fee. Since they still have to be voted on, I’d argue that concerns about intrusion into the legislative process are at their nadir. Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. I'd say that adding the ability to create one’s own blots allowed Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) to operate in a way contrary to legislative intent and common sense, even if that rule was not actually amended at that point. After all, even aside from the general legislative intent against scams, Welcome Packages are clearly intended to be a limited resource rather than an infinite spring of riches. But even if we assume that Rule 2555 (Blots) is the one operating in a way contrary, Rule 2626 doesn’t say that a patch proposal must therefore amend Rule 2555. Regardless of which rule is at fault, “Welcome Package Patch” did “rectify” the “situation", and arguably did so minimally, since any other type of patch would probably have a larger impact on game mechanics.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
On 7/5/2020 4:44 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > >> So it does NOT meet the test in Rule 2626(1) on legislative intent (nor do >> any of the other tests apply). It would be presumptuous, in this case, for >> any judge or referee to overrule the legislature and find otherwise, when >> every element of the overall "bug" was clearly functional and instituted >> with legislative intent, and being used as intended. > > In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is > clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so > in conjunction with other rules. To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative process. Each piece worked as intended by the legislature at the time it was voted on. And worked perfectly and according to common sense. I don't see how you can extend legislative intent to unforeseen consequences when each piece worked, and continues to work, as intended. Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: So it does NOT meet the test in Rule 2626(1) on legislative intent (nor do any of the other tests apply). It would be presumptuous, in this case, for any judge or referee to overrule the legislature and find otherwise, when every element of the overall "bug" was clearly functional and instituted with legislative intent, and being used as intended. In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so in conjunction with other rules. I disagree with such tunnel vision. Most of what I’d call bugs in the ruleset involve a combination of rules, so from my perspective, your interpretation of Rule 2626 comes close to reading “bug” out of the rule, even if it leaves a tiny bit of room for “clearly malfunctioning text”. Also, your judgement focuses on the “legislative intent” prong of Rule 2626(1), but lacks any mention of the other prong, “common sense”. For legislative intent, there may be a case that, if nobody thought about the interaction of that specific set of mechanics before passing the relevant proposals, the legislature can’t have any real intent on the matter. Though even then – why am I assuming nobody thought about it (other than perhaps those involved in the scam)? Simply because if they had, the proposals likely wouldn’t have passed. In other words, there is a strong latent legislative intent not to create scammable mechanics, even if it wasn’t applied to this specific situation. But even if that doesn’t count as intent, such speculation about voters’ mental states is not needed to evaluate “common sense”. For that, we need only consider what people (not necessarily voters) *would* think if asked about this particular “way” that the rule “operate[s]”. And in this case, allowing anyone to instantly gain unlimited Cards by being repeatedly exiled is clearly a violation of common sense. It may not be entirely clear which part of the scheme is the problem – which affects the question of "minimal rectification” – but it’s clear that there is a problem, and that’s enough to make the situation a Rule 2626 “bug”.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
On 7/5/2020 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Now, the above arguments make it seem like there's absolutely no such > thing as a "bug" wherever text was voted on by the legislature. In that > respect, it is quite reasonable to apply the "bug" designation to clearly > malfunctioning text, if the malfunction is direct and limited in scope. > For example, if a CAN is missing a "by announcement", and the context of > surrounding text makes it clear that the text can only work if an explicit > method is put in, there's a bug (such an omission is not a R2626(2) > "error" in that it might still have some functionality and meaning, so the > mistake is functional not textual, which makes it a "bug" not an "error" > by R2626). The bug itself must be very limited and minimal in scope to be > considered a bug, and mere legislative regret doesn't cut it. Addendum: an example I didn't get into (because it would take a couple paragraphs) was what killed originally-intended scam method: the fact that the "withdrawing objections" 24-hour timeout applied to Notice would pass as a true "bug" IMO. But only after doing detailed historical research, which shows that Notice wasn't defined when that text was put in, and nobody thought that it would apply to Notice during the various re-writes of dependent actions, and it breaks a specific thing that's self-contained within the rule (and also against common sense somewhat). -G.
