OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4010 Judged FALSE by ais523
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4010 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). === CFJ 4010 === The mentioned replacement in proposal 8898 was effectively applied. == Caller:snail Judge: ais523 Judgement: FALSE == History: Called by snail: 19 Feb 2023 05:12:47 Assigned to ais523: 21 Feb 2023 01:05:11 Judged FALSE by ais523: 27 Feb 2023 17:11:13 == Caller's Evidence: > On Feb 18, 2023, at 10:40 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > In proposal 8898: > >> Amend R2675 (Dream of Wandering) by replacing the paragraph that starts >> with "- Gardens" with: >> >> - Gardens: Immediately after a wandering, the Base Rockiness of each >>Gardens Dreamer is increased by 1. > > > The text to replace is a list item, not a paragraph. I am interpreting > this as not being applied. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason Caller's Arguments: Light arguments for TRUE: a list item is a type of paragraph, and there's nothing else the term "paragraph that starts with '- Gardens'" could refer to. -- Gratuitous Arguments by Jason: I believe we've generally held that list items are either parts of paragraphs or a separate thing, rather than being paragraphs themselves (even if formatted as such). Also, "it can't possibly mean anything else" isn't enough, given that we've rejected things like "Amend Rule /R", even though that couldn't possibly mean anything else. -- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: CFJ 3778 found that list items could have whole line breaks inserted between them and removed because they were not significant. This is not true with paragraphs. If the section of text with ' - Gardens" is taken to begin a paragraph, and is followed by additional list items where the whitespace could be removed, the replaced paragraph would include all of those line items. Or at least it is unclear where the paragraph ends. Additional CFJ to consider - In CFJ 3451, Judge Tiger explicitly finds that the R105 standard is even stricter than "everyone knows what was meant and there's only one reasonable interpretation" (maybe R105 should be weakened a tad, but that would be a legislative not judicial correction): Judge Tiger wrote: > By the natural-language interpretation of ambiguity alone, I would deem > that using the wrong ID, which is not used by any other rule, and the > correct title, is clear enough. Ambiguity implies multiple potential > meanings. There is no sensible way for the "incorrect" number 2455 to be > an indication of another meaning, or an attempt at obfuscation of the > proposal's effect, when there is no rule 2455 but there is a 2445. I > deem this case to not fall under the precedent of CFJ 1625. > > However, the second sentence of the paragraph specifies that any > variation, other than "inconsequential variation in the quotation of a > rule", constitutes ambiguity. I take this to be an extra safety measure: > even if, as in this case, the intended meaning was never really > ambiguous to us (to me), the rules require a higher standard of clarity. https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3451 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3778 -- Additional discussion in DIS: snail wrote: > Looking at this CFJ (3778), it seems to say the opposite about line > breaks within a paragraph: > > CFJ 3452 ruled that paragraph boundaries should be determined based mainly > on grammatical structure rather than layout. Following its reasoning, "A" > above would all be considered a single paragraph, since it's a single > grammatical sentence; therefore, there are no "paragraph breaks" to > contend with and the changes *[inserting whole line breaks within a > paragraph]* are definitely insignificant. > > Grammatically, each list item looks to be its own paragraph. The list > items following the "- Gardens" list item are not able to have all of > their whitespace removed, as this would contradict CFJ 3778: "[there > is] a prohibition on merging or splitting paragraphs". > > If there was any ambiguity of whether the list items are all part of > one paragraph, or each their own paragraph, the proposal resolves that > ambiguity by referring to one of the list items as a paragraph. G. wrote: > Interestingly, this argument had the
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4011 Judged TRUE by snail
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4011
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4011 ===
There are different types of devices described or defined in R2654
which do not refer to the device switch defined in R2655.
==
Caller:G.
Barred:ais523
Judge: snail
Judgement: TRUE
==
History:
Called by G.: 19 Feb 2023 15:28:01
Assigned to snail:21 Feb 2023 01:05:43
Judged TRUE by snail: 01 Mar 2023 05:52:41
==
Caller's Arguments:
In CFJ 3941, I judged:
> First, to be clear, The Device switch and The Device rule are not
> "devices" by virtue of their names alone.
In CFJ 4004, Judge ais523 wrote:
> In order to resolve this CFJ, we need to be clear on what a device
> actually is. Rule 2654 has somehow managed to avoid defining it.
> However, rule 2655 does contain a definition: "The device is a
> singleton switch with values off (default) and on."
Neither judgement examined too deeply whether the explicit definition
of the device switch in R2655 contradicts the various properties of
"devices" defined in R2654 (e.g. switches aren't platinum).
To elaborate my CFJ 3941 arguments a bit, I think the various
definitional statements in R2654 describe different types of devices
and therefore define them in a way distinct from the switch. In some
circumstances, definitions can be operational ("a platinum device")
without saying "a device is platinum" directly.
But the main purpose of this cfj is to look at the conflict between
the two judgements, so I'm not arguing too strongly for either side,
mainly trying to resolve the conflict.
--
Judge snail's Arguments:
I will first uphold the judgement of CFJ 3941, "the device" is not
necessarily a device. Imagine if there was another switch called "The CFJ",
it wouldn't be a CFJ just because of its name. So the question is, what
about the judgement of CFJ 4004 needs to change? It begins with this
assumption and bases most of its arguments off of it, so practically the
whole judgement needs rethinking, though its conclusion may be the same.
Since "the device" and "a device" are different classes of entities, I find
that enough to simply judge CFJ 4011 TRUE.
Rule 2654 (The Device) describes a few different kinds of devices: Agoran
devices, random devices, welcome devices. I wouldn't go so far to say it
"defines" them, though. It describes the properties of the different kinds
of devices, and also of the device itself, as if they were defined
elsewhere. The device is defined elsewhere, but devices seem to have no
definition, at least while the device is off. There are plenty of
definitions while the device is on, though. This likely functions similarly
to the definition of something such as a stamp being repealed and
reenacted: devices don't exist while they aren't defined, so CFJ 4004's
judgement seems to be correct.
==
OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) Fri 03 Mar 2023 DEADLINES (details below) --- 4012 Assigned to R. Lee OVERDUE Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:14 4014 Assigned to Murphy Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:25:36 4015 Assigned to Janet Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:26:08 INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 4010 ais523 4011 snail 4012 R. Lee 4013 G. 4014 Murphy 4015 Janet OPEN CASES --- [Note: there may be an open and unassigned CFJ with a duplicate text to CFJ 4015]. 4015 Assigned to Janet [Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:26:08] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4015 This is a valid objection. 4014 Assigned to Murphy [Due Fri 10 Mar 2023 22:25:36] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4014 Rule 2643 contains the text 'A stone is immune if and only if'. 4012 Assigned to R. Lee [Due Tue 28 Feb 2023 01:06:14] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4012 The text of Rule 2486/1 (The Royal Parade), up to but not including "IN CELEBRATION", consists of multiple paragraphs. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 4013 Judged FALSE by G. [Thu 23 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4013 Janet is party to at least one contract whose title begins with 'Riemann is'. 4011 Judged TRUE by snail [Wed 01 Mar 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4011 There are different types of devices described or defined in R2654 which do not refer to the device switch defined in R2655. 4010 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Mon 27 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4010 The mentioned replacement in proposal 8898 was effectively applied. 4009 Judged FALSE by Murphy [Sat 18 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4009 In this message, Apathy was declared. 4008 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Thu 16 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4008 It costs 2 hooves to get a jersey for a horse and add a horse to that horse's pull. 4007 Judged FALSE by G. [Wed 15 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4007 The horses have been motivated this week. 4006 Judged FALSE by Janet [Mon 20 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4006 To meet the requirements of Rule 2201 upon acceping a Claim of Error regarding a document, it is enough for the publisher of that document to provide information that clearly and unambiguously determines the text of the revised document. 4005 Judged TRUE by Janet [Mon 20 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4005 Rule 2201 requires of a publisher of a document, upon acceping a Claim of Error, to publish the literal text of the revised document. 4004 Judged FALSE by ais523 [Sat 04 Feb 2023] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4004 I now own and control a Device.
OFF: [CotC] CFJ 4013 Judged FALSE by G.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4013
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=== CFJ 4013 ===
Janet is party to at least one contract whose title begins with
'Riemann is'.
==
Caller:Janet
Barred:snail
Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE
==
History:
Called by Janet: 20 Feb 2023 01:11:06
Assigned to G.: 21 Feb 2023 01:06:43
Judged FALSE by G.: 23 Feb 2023 14:57:47
==
Caller's Arguments:
I see a few possibilities:
* Each purported consent is unclear due to having an indeterminate
condition attached, so 0 contracts were created.
* Exactly one purported consent worked, based on whether the Riemann
hypothesis is true or false, so 1 contract was created.
* Both purported consents work, as the conditional doesn't affect
whether consent was given, so 2 contracts were created.
The applicable clause of Rule 2519/2 is item 1. This item does not
include any clarity standards for consenting, and it does not explicitly
mention conditionals. We could potentially read the same standard as "by
announcement" into "publicly stated" in order to make the purported
consents fail. Similarly, the rule could be read to make purported
conditional consents consent unconditionally, as I may have "publicly
stated" my consent, even if I attempted to hedge it, thus making both
consents work.
Rule 1742/23 also does not place any clarity standards on the creation
of contracts (other than "publicly"). Paragraph 3 does not apply
because, of the zero or more contracts that exist, their text is fully
public and well-specified (even if their existence is not). So I think
this comes down entirely to which purported consents work, rather than
the consents involving contracts specifically.
Caller's Evidence:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 5:11 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>
> If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I consent to, create, and join the
> following contract entitled "Riemann is True":
>
> {
>
> Well, I guess that's not particularly surprising.
>
> Only Janet can be a party to this contract; if any other person is a
> party, e immediately ceases to be.
>
> }
>
>
> If the Riemann Hypothesis is false, I consent to, create, and join the
> following contract entitled "Riemann is False":
>
> {
>
> Wow! That's amazing!
>
> Only Janet can be a party to this contract; if any other person is a
> party, e immediately ceases to be.
>
> }
>
Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
Consent
A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
at the time the action took place:
1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
unambiguously indicates eir consent;
3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
take place or assented to it taking place.
Rule 1742/23 (Power=2.5)
Contracts
Any group of one or more consenting persons (the parties) may
publicly make an agreement among themselves with the intention
that it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such
an agreement is known as a contract. A contract may be modified,
including by changing the set of parties, with the consent of all
existing parties. A contract may also be terminated with the
consent of all parties. A contract automatically terminates if the
number of parties to it falls below one. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a
person to become a party to a contract without eir consent.
Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
between the contract and the rules.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any change that would cause
the full provisions or parties of a contract to become publicly
unavailable is canceled and does not take effect.
The portion of a contract's provisions that can be interpreted
with reference only to information that is either publicly or
generally available are known as its body; the remainder of the
provisions are known as the annex.
A party to a
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4014 Assigned to Murphy
The below CFJ is 4014. I assign it to Murphy.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4014
=== CFJ 4014 ===
Rule 2643 contains the text 'A stone is immune if and only if'.
==
Caller:Janet
Judge: Murphy
==
History:
Called by Janet: 28 Feb 2023 01:47:43
Assigned to Murphy:: [now]
==
Caller's Arguments:
P8906 attempts to insert a "paragraph", but the text to insert has two
paragraphs. This may be sufficiently ambiguous as to render the change
ineffective under Rule 105/23.
I am not aware of any on-point precedent.
Caller's Evidence:
//
ID: 8906
Title: Stone Immunity Correction (Keeping Our Stones) Act
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors:
[Restore the definition of immunity, and add security to it.]
Amend Rule 2643 ("Collecting Stones") by prepending the following paragraph:
{
A stone is immune if and only if it is defined as such by the rules of
power not less than 2.
A stone is immune if it is owned by Agora. A stone is immune if it has
been granted immunity since the last collection notice. The granting of
immunity is secured.
}
[Explicitly prohibit the Soul Stone from transferring stones owned by
Agora. This isn't technically needed with the previous change, but it's
better to just make it explicit to prevent accidentally it breaking
again in the future.]
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by replacing "When wielded, the Soul
Stone is transferred to the owner of a different specified non-immune
stone, then that stone is transferred to the wielder." with "When
wielded, the Soul Stone is transferred to the owner of a different
specified non-immune stone not owned by Agora, then that stone is
transferred to the wielder.".
[Disallow theft of Protected stones, and add a tiebreak.]
Amend Rule 2645 ("The Stones") by replacing the list item beginning
"Anti-Equatorial" with the following
{
- Anti-Equatorial Stone (Monthly, 5): When wielded, the mossiest
non-immune stone is transferred to the wielder. If more than one such
stone is tied for mossiest, a specified one is transferred. When this
happens, the Anti-Equatorial Stone's mossiness is incremented by 1.
}
//
Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
generally:
1. enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to
one if the enacting instrument does not specify or if it
specifies a power less than 0.1, and the maximum power
permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a
title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID
number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting
instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
2. repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
maintain a record of it.
3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent
rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and the
next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule is
reenacted with the same text it had when it was most recently
repealed. If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the
rule, the rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
the repealed version. Unless specified otherwise by the
reenacting instrument, a reenacted rule has power equal to the
power it had at the time of its repeal (or power 1, if power
was not defined at the time of that rule's repeal). If the
reenacting instrument is incapable of setting the reenacted
rule's power to that value, then the reenactment is null and
void.
4. amend the text of a rule.
5. retitle (syn. amend the title of) a rule.
6. change the power of a rule.
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4015 Assigned to Janet
The below CFJ is 4015. I assign it to Janet. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4015 === CFJ 4015 === This is a valid objection. == Caller:4st Judge: Janet == History: Called by 4st:01 Mar 2023 04:50:01 Assigned to Janet:[now] == Caller's Evidence: On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 6:31 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023, 3:59 PM Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote: > > > MAD ENGINEER'S WEEKLY REPORT > > > > The Device is off. > > > > > > EXPERIMENT 00074 INTENT TO INVENT > > > > I intend, with Agoran consent, to cause Rule 2655 to amend the Rule "The > > Device" by appending the following a a list item to the "When the device > > is on:" list: > > > > ... > > > > > I oppose this intent because it is not my suggestion. :) > Caller's Arguments: Arguments FOR: the intent is clear and unambiguous. (I think this is fairly clear, but Janet has issued a doubt without making a CFJ and it will come time to decide whether the intent passed or not eventually.) ==
