status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4026
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4026 ===============================
In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as
to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: ais523
Judgement: IRRELEVANT
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 04 May 2023 23:05:01
Assigned to ais523: 08 May 2023 16:54:56
Judged IRRELEVANT by ais523: 12 May 2023 23:34:38
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Currently, an action that's made ILLEGAL by a SHALL NOT does not in
itself make that action regulated by clause (1) of R2125 (SHALL NOT is
not a limit, allowance, enablement, or permission). I believe clause
1 used to include 'forbid' which would have made SHALL NOTs regulated,
but that word or a synonym is not there now.
"Interpretation" is a thought/speech act and as a whole - it's not
subject to success or failure (clause 2). Interpretation in certain
contexts (CFJ judgements) may change a record for clause 3, but
interpretation in general does not do that.
Therefore, my interpretation is that the clause in question forbids
itself. Also, as these CFJ arguments are themselves an
interpretation, I believe these CFJ arguments are an interpretation
about the legality of making these CFJ arguments and I would ask the
judge to note if this is so.
Caller's Evidence:
Rule 2125/13 (Power=3)
Regulated Actions
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances
under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action
would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some
player is required to be a recordkeepor.
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge ais523's Arguments:
Here's an excerpt from a proposal (8867) that was adopted recently:
> [
> The goal of this is to expand on our banning system and implement some
> clearly defined values into the rules of Agora. This comprises two main
> changes.
>
> The first removes the "free speech" clause from R478 and replaces it
> with a bill of expectations that largely seek to maximize participation
> while recognizing ways in which that might reasonably be abridged.
>
[snip]
>
> Amend R478 by deleting the following text:
>
> Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
> be prohibited from participating in the Fora
[snip]
The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that
prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in
gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on
various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking
me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the
CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict.
Additionally, I can't even work out whether the statement of the CFJ is
true or not without attempting to interpret the rules, something which
might turn out to be illegal (and for which I can't know, before
attempting it, whether it's illegal or not).
Normally, when judging a CFJ whose statement has been posed
incorrectly, I provide arguments to let people know the truth or
otherwise of the statement that they probably meant to ask. However,
with the protections that would normally be provided to me repealed, I
do not wish to attempt that in this case. Instead, I will simply note
that the caller has asked the wrong question: this is a question of
interpretation, and various parts of the ruleset affect the meaning of
various other parts of the ruleset. It isn't relevant to the game
whether a hypothetical action might or might not breach a *particular*
rule if, e.g., the same action is permitted by a different rule.
When trying to judge this CFJ, I got as far as "OK, there's a
distinction between 'the rules proscribe this action' and 'rule 2125
proscribes this action' – does that matter here", looked at the other
rules that might matter, discovered that one of them had had the
relevant sentence fragment repealed, and realised I was on dangerous
ground even attempting to understand the rule to the extent that I
could judge, so I stopped. I did, however, realise that it doesn't
matter whether or not rule 2125 bans an action if the same action is
permitted by a rule that outprecedences it (and that there are some
rules that might, e.g. the last paragraph of rule 217). So the relevant
question here is whether the *Rules as a whole* are proscribing
unreglated actions. This is not the question that the caller asked.
I judge CFJ 4026 IRRELEVANT. I note that there's no point in calling a
corrected CFJ under the current ruleset: rule 591 doesn't actually
require CFJ judges to give appropriate rulings to judgements, and rule
2125 could easily make it illegal to judge a corrected CFJ as TRUE
(judging a CFJ is a regulated action, thus a prohibition on proscribing
unregulated actions wouldn't affect that), so if the judge of the
resulting CFJ wanted to ensure e was following the rules, eir safest
course of action would be to judge it FALSE without actually attempting
to interpret the rules in question – and as such, the CFJ verdict would
not be of any use in resolving the controversy.
We should probably amend rule 2125 to have the wording that was
probably intended (something along the lines of "the correct
interpretation of the rules is one that does not proscribe unregulated
actions") and/or to reinstate a protection against the rules
accidentally making it illegal to, e.g., honestly judge a CFJ. Then it
would be possible for judges to attempt to determine what the rule in
question meant without risking a rules violation in the process.
==========================================================================
