On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:51 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The below CFJ is 4044. I assign it to 4st. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4044 > > =============================== CFJ 4044 =============================== > > On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. > > ========================================================================== > > Caller: Janet > > Judge: 4st > > ========================================================================== > > History: > > Called by Janet: 23 Jun 2023 16:28:37 > Assigned to 4st: [now] > > ========================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the > continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect, > nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a > specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not > have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of > "having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must > therefore always use the current definition in force. > > Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous > action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was > not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using > either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519, > yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated > action of any form. > > R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice > Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under > either the current or former version of the rule. > > > Caller's Evidence: > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > ID: 8988 > Title: Rice rewrite > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Janet > Co-authors: snail > > > Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole: > { > The Ricemastor is an office. > > Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly > restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is > owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed. > > An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week, > specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set). > When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set > gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice > down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list > of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy > it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan. > > An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An > active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a > contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir > signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each > rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it. > > A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs, > the following happen in order: > * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the > earliest created), if any, is harvested. > * All rice plans are destroyed. > > Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2 > rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice > and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner > three times, this rule immediately repeals itself. > } > > [ > Changes: > - Generally cleaned up wording > - Handle rice at Lost and Found > - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case > where a person is in both the up and down sets) > - Use "CAN" for enabling > - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than > "consent" > - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures > - Removed Fancy Caps > ] > > ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Rule 2682/0 (Power=1) > The Rice Game > > The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice > Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by > players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement, > if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have > Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice > Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is > consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e > has created by announcement. > > A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs: > - If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that > Rice Plan is Harvested. > - If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, > the one that was created earliest is Harvested. > - In all other cases, nothing happens. > And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends. > > Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having > no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these > lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list. > When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice > Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each > player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then > e lose 1 Rice. > > If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2 > Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins > the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in > this manner three times, this rule repeals itself. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Rule 2682/1 (Power=1) > The Rice Game > > The Ricemastor is an office. > > Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership > wholly restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in > abeyance or is owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is > destroyed. > > An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per > week, specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice > down set). When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in > the rice up set gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each > player in the rice down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's > weekly report includes a list of rice plans. The creator of a rice > plan CAN by announcement destroy it, thereby causing it to cease > to be a rice plan. > > An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. > An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it > or if a contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states > that eir signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report > includes, for each rice plan, a list of players with signatures on > it. > > A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest > occurs, the following happen in order: > * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor > of the earliest created), if any, is harvested. > * All rice plans are destroyed. > > Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at > least 2 rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, > then all rice and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been > won in this manner three times, this rule immediately repeals > itself. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [R2682/1 did not appear in any published ruleset. The purported R2682/2 > did (under the incorrect belief that P8989 took effect), which differs > from R2682/1 only in saying "at least 5 rice" in the final paragraph. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gratuitous Arguments by G.: > > "Sign" is not an arbitrary word, but a word with a common definition > in the context of documents (or document-like things such as Rice > Plans). A perfectly common and natural definition of "signing" a > thing is to add one's signature to the thing. In adjudicating Rule > 2682/0 in CFJ 4032, before "sign" was explicitly in that rule, Judge > ais523 literally uses the term as a direct and specific synonym for > adding a signature to a plan under the old rule: > > > "a Rice Plan has X's signature" is a synonym for "X is consenting to > > {the Rice Plan / the Rice Plan being signed}" > > Signatures were added to the plans in question under R2682/0 and not > removed, so the plans were "signed" by common and obvious definition > at the time of the change from R2682/0 to R2682/1. So when this text > came into effect: > > > An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it > > The fact that those plans had been signed remained true under the new > rule as well as the old (there was never a moment when it wasn't true, > during that transition). > > ========================================================================== > I find that this all hinges upon the final paragraph of the caller's argument. Rice plans are an entity, and "has an active player's Signature" or "An active player's signature is on" is an attribute of that entity, and thus, I find that R1586 is NOT irrelevant. Specifically, in R1586: "If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but with different attributes, then the second entity and its attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions. " The attributes of signatures of Rice Plans have not been changed significantly enough to claim that previous signatures do not exist, because it is very clearly possible for them to exist. To further address the caller's arguments, however: In the first paragraph: Agreed, the new by announcement action of signing could not have been performed before adoption. And it can also be agreed that "having signed" was always in force before adoption, as per the old ruling. Thus, rice plans had an attribute before and after the proposal was adopted, providing continuity, which is governed by R1586. In the second paragraph: I do not need to rule on the continuity of the action itself, so I will not. It sounds complicated and irrelevant. I would like to rule as they are continuous if it makes anyone feel better, but I will not do so officially. I find the arguments by G to also be compelling, but mainly, R1586 has provided a solid resolution to his conundrum. Thus, I judge this to be TRUE. -- 4ˢᵗ Deputy Herald and Deputy Prime Minister Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
