status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4030 ===============================
Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times
for a single instance of a ritual act.
==========================================================================
Caller: nix
Judge: Yachay
==========================================================================
History:
Called by nix: 17 May 2023 23:14:29
Assigned to Yachay: 21 May 2023 14:06:53
Judged TRUE by Yachay: 21 May 2023 17:35:04
Entered into Moot: 22 May 2023 19:28:28
Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot: 31 May 2023 19:12:46
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> Previous versions of rule 2680 said "CAN once" (e.g.
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016950.html
> - mail-archive.com isn't archiving old rulesets so I had to link the
> private archive).
>
> However, proposal 8943
> (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13159.html)
> changed it to a version without the "once". We generally say "CAN once"
> if an action is only intended to be possible once, and the "once", once
> present, is now repealed. This means that it should be possible to
> anoint multiple ritual numbers using the same ritual act.
Caller's Arguments:
To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN
[verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the
way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of
pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a
card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in
the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would
interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in
other games.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can
draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would
interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that
the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that,
barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly
under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption
came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first
principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying
"it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the
win).
For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can
perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an
appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger"
successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written
originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity
of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X
happens, a player CAN Y" language.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yachay's Arguments:
Guidance in Rule 217 states:
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being:
When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by
announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and
the new ritual number.
The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint
once, or that you can anoint multiple times.
Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran
custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence
from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to
permit it as evidence for this case:
I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current
custom
and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained
totally fairly
under that assumption.
However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to
anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to
allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game":
To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN
[verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is
the
way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of
pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a
card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in
the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would
interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations
in
other games.
I am personally convinced that this is a reasonable interest that a number
of people may have, as clearly shown by nix and G. Being myself familiar
with board games and their customs being reasonably easy for people check
for themselves, I permit this as evidence for the case as well for what
would be "in the best interests of the game" and don't believe I require
any further investigation into this.
So, presented with these two conflicting views, unfortunately Rule 217
doesn't establish some kind of priority between the different alternatives
to the text of the rule. There is no priority between "custom" and "the
best interests of the game", leaving me at an apparent impasse with the
evidence presented. I cannot simply DIMISS this case either, given this
apparent tie, because I believe that there is enough that indicates that I
nonetheless have to tiebreak and deliver a Judgement regardless as the
Judge for this case.
In this case, it would be easy to deliver Judgement to if there was an
overwhelming majority that wanted this Judgement to be Judged in a certain
way, because of the mechanic in Rule 911 of Moots and Motions to
Reconsider, which seem to reasonably imply that it's ultimately in the
choice of popular Agoran opinion which Judgements end up being delivered
and which not. However, with just 3 participating voices from the rest of
players, it's difficult for me to make a reasonable assumption - plus, I
personally believe that ais523 is correct, as it seems to be a more
mechanistic and austere reading of that rule without needing to be
augmented by fairly specific linguistic presumptions, leaving it at a 2 v
2. I recognize that those are very reasonable presumptions to have, but I
don't see them as being sufficiently linguistically dominant; nor do I see
what seems to be a last-minute change in interpretation to be in the "best
interests of the game" either, even if the new interpretation would be
itself in the "best interests of the game". If it was sufficiently
announced, sure. But I don't feel like it's fair to blindside a player like
that.
So,
Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 217, (appeal to game custom /
best interests of the game)
Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 911, (appeal to the opinion
of the majority)
And nonetheless believe that it is my duty deliver judgement regardless,
I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my personal
opinion.
==========================================================================
