On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 12:04 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 4/10/24 10:05, nix via agora-official wrote:
> > On 4/7/24 02:25, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> >> Retitle R2642 (Gathering Stones) to "Stone Cost" and then amend R2642 to
> >> read in full:
> >>
> >> Stone Cost is a Stone switch with values of non-negative integers
> >> and a default of 10. Stone Cost is tracked by the Stonemason.
> >>
> >> Any player CAN pay a fee of X Spendies to transfer a specified stone
> >> to emself, where X is the current Stone Cost of the specified stone.
> >>
> >> When a stone is transferred, its Stone Cost is set to the default.
> >> At the beginning of every week, the Stone Cost for each stone is
> >> reduced by 1, to a minimum of 0.
> >>
> >> Repeal R2642 (Gathering Stones).
> > I CFJ: Rule 2642 has been repealed.
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > {
> > As quoted above, proposal 9079 attempted to retitle, amend, and then
> > repeal 2642. This was an authorial accident, as the repeal should've
> > been 2643.
> >
> > What makes this an unclear case is that the repeal specifies a name for
> > the rule. Because of the re-titling, that name is incorrect. I kindly
> > request that the judge weigh in on whether specifying an incorrect rule
> > name has any effect on this change, and whether that incorrect rule name
> > being parenthetical matters.
> > }
> >
> > I number this CFJ 4078. I assign CFJ 4078 to snail.
> >
>
> Gratuitous:
>
> The prior precedent is CFJ1625 [0], but this relied on old rule change
> ambiguity language (see the linked case). We have since moved away from
> that language in P9058.
>
> The clause of R105 mentioning "inconsequential variation"s was not
> changed by P9058, and this is certainly not an inconsequential
> variation. However, two points against this exist: a title might not be
> "quoting" from a rule, and the "Furthermore" clause takes precedence
> under R2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply").
>
>
> [0] https://agoranomic.org/cases/?1625
>
This case differs from CFJ 1625 in that the parenthetical references a rule
name that did not exist in the rules at the time of the repeal. As
parenthetical rule names are not clearly marked comments, they instead
serve an effect in the proposal: a specification of a rule. This functions
as a safeguard in the case of a mismatch of rule number and rule name that
prevents the rule change altogether, holding from 1625.
The mistitling isn't an "inconsequential variation in the quotation of an
existing rule" because 1) the rule (Gathering Stones) didn't exist at the
time, and 2) the variation is not inconsequential, as something like (tone
Cost) would be.
So the relevant clause is "Furthermore, if the change being specified would
be clear to any reasonable player, the specification is not ambiguous, even
if it is incorrect or unclear on its face."
Could any reasonable player find a clear meaning of a Repeal which
specifies both a rule and a potentially-non-rule? In this case, the Rule
number obviously refers to a certain rule, but the rule name is less
obvious. The rule that used to be named (Gathering Stones) could be what is
being referred to, and that would match up with the rule number, but there
could be another entity titled "Gathering Stones" that would be being
specified instead, such as a nonexistent rule. The existence of the
parenthetical as a safeguard serves to make things more unclear: is it
meant to fail because the title is wrong, or succeed since the mistitle was
the previous name of the rule? The intent of the proposal also serves to
make things unclear to a reasonable Agoran, as why would one repeal a rule
they just amended, that functions as a core part of a subgame? It could be
a mistake or an intentional scam, but if it was a scam, it would likely be
correctly titled so as to unambiguously work.
One could assume that it repeals a rule, but one could also assume it fails
due to the safeguard, and therefore, since there's not one "clear" change,
it fails. This seems like a judgement that may have some wiggle room for
debate on "clearness", but the 4 factors should solidify it to being
ineffective, as accidentally repealing a rule you just amended ought to be
only possible if you correctly specified it, and safeguards should work, as
they have before.
I judge CFJ 4078 FALSE.
--
snail
