On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 11:27 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 11/13/23 00:26, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > On 10/20/23 16:42, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote:
> >> I self-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 4051, and judge it FALSE. I
> thought
> >> 67 was the "dream didn't work" number.
> > I intend with 5 support to enter this CFJ 4051 into a moot. I intend
> > with 6 support to enter CFJ 4051 into a moot (in case enough time passes
> > to invalidate the previous).
> >
> > The conclusion of 4051 *seems* to contradict the conclusions of CFJs
> > 4018, 3831, and 3838. The former found a specific scenario where
> > radiance and points were equal (a scenario that notably benefited the
> > judge that ruled otherwise here), and the latter have found that
> > synonyms, from common usage or agoran usage, generally work.
> >
> > I think a judgment needs to explain why this situation is different than
> > the others where synonyms have worked, or else find TRUE.
> >
>
> *sigh*
>
> I support the above intent for "with 5 support".
>
> I support the above intent for "with 6 support".
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
I do the same, although I think the judgement was correct despite lacking
in arguments.
Some hopefully helpful, and definitely gratuitous, arguments:
CFJ 3831/3838 gives us:
Synthesizing these precedents, we believe that the meaning of terms,
when not defined in the rules, should be interpreted according to
three sources of evidence:
1. Common-language definitions
2. Historical definitions and customary usage within the game
3. Responses to the message, as a proxy for analyzing the ability of
recipients to understand it.
This standard will allow us to communicate without unnecessary
restrictions or prescriptions arising simply from the use of specific
terms for ideas within the ruleset; as a result, this standard is in
the best interests of a game premised upon free communication and
artful language use.
for use in "by announcement" actions. It may be reasonable to extend these
guidelines to the rules, though arguments to the contrary should be
considered: these standards were derived with "free communication and
artful language use" in mind, not interpreting the text of the rules
(although the rules are communicating to us), so they may not apply the
same way.
3. would likely need to be replaced, for instance. Point 2 would likely
support the charity dream working, but point 1 is more ambiguous, as
"gaining points" could refer to a number of things, as it isn't rule
defined.
If we were to add a rule that made points an asset, for instance, having
the charity dream suddenly change effects from gaining radiance to gaining
points would be unintuitive, as we didn't change that rule.
(Also vibes-wise, since we made a mistake by omitting to change points to
radiance, it feels like that should have some effect on the game. Like my
initial reaction was "oh dang, we don't have points anymore, right. Guess
that's broken.")
This case also uses more sections of Rule 1586 than CFJ 4018:
Rule 1586/9 (Power=2)
Definition and Continuity of Entities
If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same name,
then they refer to the same entity. A rule-defined entity's name
CANNOT be changed to be the same as another rule-defined entity's
name.
A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name
refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came
to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since
changed.
[This part of the Rule could be relevant. Are points, as referred to
in the charity dream, an entity? If so, and radiance is the same
entity, then this clause takes effect and makes the charity dream
work.]
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
its attributes cease to exist.
[This part is also relevant, though. Are "points" still defined? if
not, then they no longer exist. Which is strange because this takes
precedence over the previous clause, which might say they do exist
even when not defined. Although you could interpret radiance rules as
still defining "points" despite the name difference.]
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.
This is the part CFJ 4018 uses, and hinges on the question of if
points and radiance are the same entity.
This part seems designed to be used for when attributes are changed
but the name of an entity is not. CFJ 4018 judges on the opposite
case: a change in name but not attributes, deeming it to work.
Unfortunately, points to radiance is a case of both: radiance was not
just a reskin of points, but changed them mechanically as well.
Scoring conditions as of 5 Feb 2023:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2657/7 (Power=1)
Scoring
Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer
associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL
in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the
associated amount of points, rounded down.
Below is a list of scoring conditions and their associated points
and officers.
* Being the author of a proposal that takes effect: 5
(Assessor).
* Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1
(Assessor).
* Having an Agoran Birthday: X, where X is the number of active
players during eir birthday (Herald).
* Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time
limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was
open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 2
(Arbitor).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was changed to self-awarding in the radiance reskin:
Amend R2657 to read, in full:
Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by
announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated
radiance.
Below is a list of radiance conditions:
* Being the author of a proposal that takes effect: 5 (must
specify proposal number)
* Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must
specify proposal number)
* Having an Agoran Birthday: X, where X is the number of active
players during eir birthday.
* Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time
limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was
open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 2 (must
specify CFJ number)
This means radiance's "identity" is different from score's, albeit
slightly. This may be enough to make points and radiance different
entities.
I think since points are different from radiance, they're different entities.
This breaks the charity dream, which tries to give a player a
previously defined "point" which no longer exists. I believe we've had
previous cases of things like that (the device) that might be worth
looking into.
This probably also means the score and radiance stone weren't the same
stone, though, since that change occured at the same time as the
personality change to score, changing the score stone's personality
indirectly.
That being said, this change may be small enough for score to retain
it's personality, but i'm not sure about that. Another complicating
factor: rule changes take place in sequence. Look at the full text of
the reskin proposal:
Retitle R2656 to "Radiance".
Amend R2656 to read in full:
A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0,
tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a
specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that
amount.
Upon a correct announcement from a player that eir radiance is 100
or more (correctly specifying the amount), e wins the game. Then,
eir radiance is set to 0, and all other players' radiance are set
to half their current value rounded down.
At the start of every quarter, all radiance switches are set to
half their current value rounded down.
For each player, set eir radiance switch to be equal to the value eir
score switch was at immediately before this proposal was adopted.
Retitle R2657 to "Gaining Radiance".
Amend R2657 to read, in full:
Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by
announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated
radiance.
Below is a list of radiance conditions:
* Being the author of a proposal that takes effect: 5 (must
specify proposal number)
* Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must
specify proposal number)
* Having an Agoran Birthday: X, where X is the number of active
players during eir birthday.
* Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time
limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was
open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 2 (must
specify CFJ number)
Amend R2659 by replacing "increase eir own score by (X^2)-X points" with
"gain (X^2)-X radiance" and replacing "increase eir own score by (X-1)*2
points" with "gain (X-1)*2 radiance".
In R2670 replacing:
The score of the player that has the most dollaries is increased
by 30. In the event of an N-way tie, instead, each tied
player's score is increased by 30/N points, rounded down.
with:
The player that has the most dollaries gains 30 radiance. In the
event of an N-way tie, instead, each tied player gains 30/N
radiance, rounded down.
In R2675 replace every instance of "score" with "radiance".
Amend R2645 by replacing:
- Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's
(defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased
by 3.
with:
- Radiance Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player
(defaulting to the wielder if not specified) gains 3 radiance.
and replacing:
When this stone is wielded, the wielder specifies an eligible
player and gains 8 points.
with:
When this stone is wielded, the wielder specifies an eligible
player and gains 8 radiance.
First the score rule is reskinned, and then the personality change
occurs in the reskinning of scoring conditions, so is this a change to
name THEN a change to personality, making it work? Or do we consider
the proposal in full?
EXCEPT, when the score rule is reskinned, it actually changes
personality in the same amendment, and it's in such a weird way!
First, it reads
Upon a correct announcement from a player that e has a score of
100 or more points, e wins the game.
Then P8914 amends it to
A player with 100 or more points CAN declare a High Score by
announcement and specifying exactly how many points e has. If a
player incorrectly does so, e loses 5 points. Upon a correct
declaration of High Score, that player wins the game.
But P8919, in the same resolution(!!!), amends it to
Upon a correct announcement from a player that eir radiance is 100
or more (correctly specifying the amount), e wins the game.
The relevant change is from the P8914 version to the P8919 version, in
which the personality changes, the extent of which is up for debate.
SO, if this change is small enough to the personality of radiance, AND
you consider the individual changes to radiance instead of the whole
of the reskin proposal, then they're the same entity. If you consider
the whole, you'd have to say both the removal of an incorrect
specification penalty, and the change from officer to individual point
redemption, were both combined not substantial enough to change the
personality of score, which is a higher threshold.
But if this change is large enough, it happens at the same time as the
reskin of radiance, making it a different entity. Although, there is a
retitling of the rule sequentially before the actual reskin + penalty
removal, which might hold it together?
This also affects the score stone case. Should points and radiance be
found to be different entities, the change from score to radiance is
substantially different: from giving nothing (as score is undefined at
the time of amendment) to giving 3 radiance, if you view the steps
sequentially, and they aren't the same entity.
There's a lot to consider here, and I'd like to hear more experienced
thoughts on this.
--
snail
