Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 10:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the > > author of the rule could plausibly have intended? > > > > The intent of the rules is excluded entirely from the list of > considerations in Rule 217. Personally, I'd argue that 'what it seems like the author intended, based on the text' is largely equivalent as a factor to "common sense". (As opposed to 'what the author claims e intended', or 'what the author actually intended', both of which are definitely excluded.) In particular, I think that applies even in scam-type situations, where the author clearly intended one thing yet the text unambiguously says something else. In those cases, I think "common sense" would counsel going by the intent, but it's overruled because "the text of the rules takes precedence", as well as because literalism is itself a "game custom".
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in > arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition, > as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"? > In particular, does it make the "once" redundant because the condition > remains true and an action can be "performed once" any number of times? > Arguably this is the only interpretation permitted by the text and, > therefore, other factors do not apply. In all three of those examples, regardless of exact wording, the condition is an event having previously occurred. In Rule 2602 it's earning a ribbon, in Rule 2350 it's a decision being resolved as FAILED QUORUM, and in Rule 103 it's one or more players winning Agora. Well, I guess you're probably referring to the *other* condition in Rule 103: If at any time the office of Speaker is vacant, or when one or more players win Agora, then the Prime Minister CAN once appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker by announcement. But the "once" is clearly meant for "when one or more players win Agora". As worded, it still *applies* to "if at any time the office of Speaker is vacant", but it's redundant in that case. Whether "once" means nothing, as you suggested, or whether (as I think) it means 'once after each time the condition switches from false to true', it doesn't matter, because appointing someone to the office makes it no longer vacant. The only interpretation under which it wouldn't be redundant is something like "if the Prime Minister has never appointed anyone as Speaker in the history of the game", which violates common sense anyway. I think Rule 103 is relevant for a different reason: because the "win Agora" side serves as an example of the type of clause Rule 2602 is trying to imitate. In Rule 2350: If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. As I see it, the most obvious interpretation is that each resolution creates a separate seven-day window, because otherwise "the proposal" would be undefined when multiple proposals have been resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days. I suppose an alternate interpretation could be that it sets up a separate continuous condition per decision (not per resolution), and "once" means either 'once after each time the condition switches from false to true' again or 'once ever', both equivalent in this case because a decision can't be resolved more than once. But I prefer the first interpretation because it's more consistent with other clauses, such as the one in Rule 103. I also believe the first interpretation is consistent with the literal wording, because the action can still only be taken if the continuous condition is true; the per-event aspect merely clarifies "once". Bolstering the case, I can't think of a good alternative phrasing that would unambiguously choose the first interpretation, without either incurring considerable verbosity or creating other ambiguities. For example, one alternative is Rule 103's "when", but that also requires some non-literal interpretation: the Prime Minister doesn't appoint a new Speaker literally "when" – at the same time as – someone wins. Finally, in Rule 2602, I believe "once per earning" would be the best interpretation even without "(until e earns another ribbon)", for similar reasons as above. But the parenthetical serves to clarify and make it the only possible interpretation.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:25, James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:13, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote: > >> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" > >> > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the > >> > point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise > >> > it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that > >> > colour". > >> > >> Or, maybe, there's at most one ribbon of each colour per player. > >> > >> - Falsifian > > > > > > The critical distinction is that "once for each time the condition is > fulfilled" is not very well defined for a continuous condition. The > condition "If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already > owned it" becomes true the moment the ribbon is earned and ceases to be > true 7 days later. And it definitely doesn't become "true twice" if e earns > a ribbon a second time; it just extends the period of time for which it is > true. > > I don't think this is a case of "once for each time the condition is > fulfulled". > > If "(until e earns another ribbon)" were deleted from the text of the > rule, what you're saying would make sense to me. But to me it seems > obvious that the intended meaning of the text "(until e earns another > ribbon)" is something close to "here, the word 'once' means that after > a player triggers this rule, e CANNOT trigger it again until e earns > another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the > author of the rule could plausibly have intended? > > - Falsifian > The intent of the rules is excluded entirely from the list of considerations in Rule 217. At this point I am primarily concerned with determining the interpretations permitted by the text, from which point I can use the other factors in Rule 217 to narrow it down. The "until e earns another ribbon" parenthetical does complicate this. It could also reasonably be interpreted as an additional form of time limit. But I think you're close to convincing me that the parenthetical at least forces the "once per time" interpretation is permissible. (Interestingly, though, I'm still unsure that it remains permissible for Rule 2350. Ideally I'd be able to sort that out too.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:25, James Cook wrote: > I don't think this is a case of "once for each time the condition is > fulfulled". (Or, maybe I should have said: I think this is a case where "once per time the condition is fulfilled" is given an explicit definition by the rule in question.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:13, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote: >> >> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote: >> > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" >> > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the >> > point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise >> > it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that >> > colour". >> >> Or, maybe, there's at most one ribbon of each colour per player. >> >> - Falsifian > > > The critical distinction is that "once for each time the condition is > fulfilled" is not very well defined for a continuous condition. The condition > "If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it" > becomes true the moment the ribbon is earned and ceases to be true 7 days > later. And it definitely doesn't become "true twice" if e earns a ribbon a > second time; it just extends the period of time for which it is true. I don't think this is a case of "once for each time the condition is fulfulled". If "(until e earns another ribbon)" were deleted from the text of the rule, what you're saying would make sense to me. But to me it seems obvious that the intended meaning of the text "(until e earns another ribbon)" is something close to "here, the word 'once' means that after a player triggers this rule, e CANNOT trigger it again until e earns another ribbon". Can you suggest any other interpretation that the author of the rule could plausibly have intended? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 01:07, James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote: > > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" > > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the > > point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise > > it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that > > colour". > > Or, maybe, there's at most one ribbon of each colour per player. > > - Falsifian > The critical distinction is that "once for each time the condition is fulfilled" is not very well defined for a continuous condition. The condition "If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it" becomes true the moment the ribbon is earned and ceases to be true 7 days later. And it definitely doesn't become "true twice" if e earns a ribbon a second time; it just extends the period of time for which it is true.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 06:05, James Cook wrote: > However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" > in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the > point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise > it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that > colour". Or, maybe, there's at most one ribbon of each colour per player. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 04:36, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in > arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition, > as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"? > In particular, does it make the "once" redundant because the condition > remains true and an action can be "performed once" any number of times? > Arguably this is the only interpretation permitted by the text and, > therefore, other factors do not apply. > > Other interpretations could include that the action can only be done once > ever, that it can only be done once per triggering event (but this seems > like a stretch given the language), and that it can only be done once each > time the condition changes, meaning that multiple events in the last 7 days > do not stack, and there must be a clear 7-day period between ribbons earned > to allow the player to repeat the action. > > The rest of the judgment I'm quite confident on, but this is not something > I feel confident ruling on without giving others time to consider. Gratuitous: Now that you bring it up, here's a possible argument that Jason Cobb didn't trigger the Glitter rule more than once. I'm not completely confident in it, but may be worth considering. It comes down to interpreting the text "(until e earns another ribbon)". If R2602 said "(until e again earns a ribbon)" I think it would be pretty clear Jason Cobb could trigger that rule again each time e earned an Emerald ribbon. However, the use of the word "it" in the text "but already owned it" in R2602 indicates to me that the text of the rule is written with the point of view that there's only one of each ribbon colour. Otherwise it could have been written "but already owned a ribbon of that colour". Since, at least in the writing of R2602, there is considered to only be one of each ribbon, the text "until e earns another ribbon" must mean that the condition can only be satisfied when e earns a ribbon of a different colour. BTW, CFJ 3770 involved the word "once", but the rule involved there didn't say anything specific like "(until e earns another ribbon)" so it's probably not applicable here. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3770 - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to Alexis
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:38, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I recuse omd from CFJ 3783 (I know you put forward some preliminary > thoughts on the case omd, which is why I waited a bit, but it's been a > long time on this case now). > > I assign CFJ 3783 to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3783 > > === CFJ 3783 === > >Jason Cobb has more than 2000 Coins. > > == > I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition, as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"? In particular, does it make the "once" redundant because the condition remains true and an action can be "performed once" any number of times? Arguably this is the only interpretation permitted by the text and, therefore, other factors do not apply. Other interpretations could include that the action can only be done once ever, that it can only be done once per triggering event (but this seems like a stretch given the language), and that it can only be done once each time the condition changes, meaning that multiple events in the last 7 days do not stack, and there must be a clear 7-day period between ribbons earned to allow the player to repeat the action. The rest of the judgment I'm quite confident on, but this is not something I feel confident ruling on without giving others time to consider.
