I opine AFFIRM with the below-quoted arguments. I intend, with the Support of the rest of the panel, to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM and publish the below-quoted arguments as a concurring opinion with an error rating of 25.
Pavitra ---- Benjamin Caplan wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote: >>> Proto: >>> >>> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Paradox!" reading: >>> >>> Unless Rule 101 takes precedence over this rule, persons have no >>> rights. >> >> Nice. A very good argument for keeping ais523's opinion. -Goethe > > Unfortunately, this is Agora, and "interpretation X would have > potentially catastrophic consequences" does not automatically imply > "interpretation X is wrong". Reductio ad absurdum must be handled very > carefully to ensure that the 'absurdity' is actually false rather than > merely absurd. > > Goethe's arguments on this matter are rather more persuasive: > > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >>> That's the point. For two rules not in conflict, precedence is >>> undefined (specifically, R1482 does not define it). >> >> So the rules are silent on the matter, and ais523 (as judge to whom >> we defer) can reasonably define it to follow the rules of conflicts. > > Is this interpretation allowed? Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with > Unequal Power) says: > No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule > to stipulate any other means of determining precedence > between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by > the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form. > This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit > such a change to the Ruleset. > > I would like to be able to argue that this only restricts defining > precedence between Rules, not between sentences. However, I can find no > justification in the Ruleset for doing so. Precedence between sentences > in Rules only appears to occur because conflict between sentences causes > the Rules containing those sentences to conflict. > > Now, it is possible there may be a way out. Rule 217 may offer a > definition of 'precedence' if and only if the relevant language was > added to it before the second paragraph of Rule 1482 was added. > R1482par2 only forbids _changes_ that would define precedence; it does > not stamp out _preexisting_ definitions of precedence. > > According to the annotations on the Full Logical Ruleset published 01 > May 2009, Rule 217 was last amended in August 2007. Rule 1482 has been > amended twice, once in 1997 (labeled as "cosmetic") and once in May 2007. > > Examining the archives reveals that the relevant amendment to R1482 was > the last one, by Proposal 4942 > (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-May/002961.html). > > The last amendment to Rule 217, by Proposal 5105 > (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-August/003160.html), > is the only substantive one after P4942 (the other merely retitled the > rule). > > P5105 replaced the text of R217 outright, so I refer to the last > publication of the ruleset before then to determine what the prior text was. > > This ruleset is found at > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-July/003149.html > and Rule 217/5 is found to have read as follows: > > Rule 217/5 (Power=3) > Judgements Must Accord with the Rules > > All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if > the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement > to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common > sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game > before applying other standards. > > When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement > contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the > truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was > issued. > > For side-by-side comparison, the current Rule 217/6 reads: > > Rule 217/6 (Power=3) > Interpreting the Rules > > 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. > > The key change, then, appears to have been to generalize the standards > that applied to judicial findings to a more general context. > > In particular, Proposal 5105 did not "cause a Rule to stipulate any > other means of determining precedence between Rules of unequal Power". > The stipulation was already present; Proposal 5105 merely extended the > scope in which that stipulation applies. > > Lest anyone argue that the extension of scope does in fact infringe > R1482par2 on the grounds that R217 now stipulates the definition in a > context where it previously did not, I observe that this case, by virtue > of being a call for judgement, falls within the umbra rather than the > penumbra (as it were). As the question before us is the subject of a > Call for Judgement, and the answer ultimately provided will be a > Judgement, for the purposes of the Court we may say that the guiding > principles given in Rule 217 are not restricted by the second paragraph > of Rule 1482. > > Therefore, since the text is silent on precedence between nonconflicting > rules of unequal power, let us consider game custom, common sense, past > judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. > > > Consideration of the best interests of the game is the most easily > evaluated of the four. root provides a very succinct and persuasive > example (quoted above) of why it is in the interest of the game for > precedence to be defined as if the rules conflicted. > > Game custom also appears to support this. I am a relative newcomer to > Agora, and have little knowledge of its frankly vast history, but unless > an older player contradicts me I will assume for the time being that the > most directly relevant precedent is Rule 1482's definition of precedence > between conflicting rules of unequal power. > > I do not remember seeing any past judgements cited in relation to this > case so far. If anyone knows of any relevant precedents, please bring > them up. > > Common sense at least appears to be forked two ways here. On the one > hand, it seems extremely reasonable for the rules of precedence to apply > in a latent sort of way when rules don't conflict. On the other hand, > one tends to feel that if one rule takes precedence over another, then > the trumped rule is thereby invalidated and rendered nonfunctional. > > A simple application of the idea, however, puts the lie to this second > interpretation. When two rules only partially conflict -- that is, for > example, when a higher-powered rule prevents part but not all of a > lower-powered rule, common sense and game custom both immediately insist > that the non-trumped part of the lower rule be allowed to stand. > Although the two rules as wholes do indeed conflict, the precedence > (which in this case can uncontroversially be said to exist) is latent > with regard to the nonconflicting clauses of the lower-powered rule. > > A little thought, then, reveals that the common-sense interpretation > must be that precedence occurs latently between nonconflicting rules. > > > Considering the relative difficulty with which the present judicial > panel was assembled, unless someone can find either a logical fallacy in > the arguments here presented or a relevant judicial precedent implying > FALSE, I recommend a ruling of AFFIRM with the above arguments as a > concurring opinion and an error rating of 25 (since the original judge's > arguments were correct, but incomplete).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature