I've been thinking a lot about CFJs and how they work. Inquiry CFJs have
been much the same for a while, and I reckon it's time for a radical
shakeup. This proto is based partly on BlogNomic and partly on B's 4th
Era, with some of my own ideas added in. This is a protoproto really, it
isn't tidying up loose ends (like repealing and modifying existing rules
so it fits in, which would be necessary in an actual proposal).
The basic ideas of the proposal are to ensure that after a case is
resolved and finally judged, the controversy about it is
uncontroversially resolved, with the rules modified to ensure that the
same controversy does not occur again and the gamestate modified to a
known value (so that incorrect judgements which aren't appealed
nevertheless don't cause everyone to continue playing on an incorrect
gamestate; at the moment, this would normally but not always be
incidentally fixed by self-ratification, but I prefer a less dubious
fix). Possibly the main change, apart from Standardisation Proposals for
TRUE and FALSE that incorporate the judgement into the ruleset, is that
UNDETERMINED requires the judge to submit a proposal to make the
statement determined, and that UNDECIDABLE now requires the judge to
resolve the paradox in question. I've also removed opportunities for the
judge to choose between two appropriate judgements, by giving a
precedence order for which judgements to choose over which others; no
more UNDETERMINED/UNDECIDABLE arguments. In other words, CFJs now
definitively resolve matters of controversy, by forcing proposals to
resolve the matter to be submitted and remaining in constant appeal
until they are adopted. There's also a new HIDDEN judgement to prevent
people using CFJs to determine information about private contracts or
secret BF Jousting programs, and OBVIOUS/OBVIOUSLY NOT judgements to
discourage frivolous CFJs and prevent them clogging up the proposal
system with useless Standardisation Proposals and the rules with useless
clarifications.
Feedback /very/ welcome on this one.
{{{{
Create a rule (or replace rule 591?) called "Inquiry Cases" with AI
(1.5? 1.7?) and the following text:
{{{
Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. The purpose of inquiry
cases is to resolve matters of controversy. An inquiry case CAN be
initiated by any first-class person (its initiator), by announcement
which includes a statement which is clearly identified as the statement
that the CFJ is about. A person SHOULD only initiate an inquiry CFJ if:
* the initiator believes that the statement is controversial (that
is, that there is unclarity about whether it is true, or
disagreement about whether it is true); and one of the following
holds:
* the initiator believes that the statement is true, or
* the initiator believes that it is impossible to determine the
veracity of the statement on information generally known to
players, or
* the initiator believes that the statement cannot be factually
and logically described as either true or false.
In the message which initiates an inquiry case, its initiator CAN
disqualify one person from assignment as judge of that case; the
initiator is also unqualified to be judge of that case.
An inquiry case has a judicial question on resolution, which is
always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are
as follows, except that no judgement is valid if a previous judgement in
this list is valid:
* MALFORMED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical, not a
single statement inherently capable of having a truth value, or
sufficiently vague that its truth or falsity cannot reasonably
be established. This is neither a positive nor negative
judgement.
* IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the statement's truth value at the
time that the case was called is not relevant to the game. This
is neither a positive nor negative judgement.
* HIDDEN, appropriate if the truth or falsity of the statement is
easily determinable by at least one player, but not by every
player.
* OBVIOUS, appropriate if the statement was uncontroversially true
at the time that the case was called. When an inquiry case has
had this judgement for sufficiently long that it cannot be
appealed without a proposal or a change in the rules, then one
Rest is created in the possession of its initiator. This is
neither a positive nor negative judgement.
* OBVIOUSLY NOT, appropriate if the statement was
uncontroversially false at the time that the case was called.
When an inquiry case has had this judgement for sufficiently
long that it cannot be appealed without a proposal or a change
in the rules, then two Rests are created in the possession of
its initiator. This is neither a positive nor negative
judgement.
* TRUE, appropriate if the statement was controversial but true at
the time that the case was called. This is a positive judgement.
* FALSE, appropriate if the statement was controversial but false
at the time that the case was called. This is a negative
judgement.
* UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement's truth, falsity or
logical undecidability at the time that the case was called
cannot reasonably be established based on information available
to the judge. This can be either a positive or negative
judgement; a judge must, when assigning this judgement, announce
whether it is positive or negative with respect to the
particular case it is assigned on.
* UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement could not be
accurately described either as true or as false at the time that
the case was called. This can be either a positive or negative
judgement; a judge must, when assigning this judgement, announce
whether it is positive or negative with respect to the
particular case it is assigned on.
When a judge assigns a positive or negative judgement, e SHALL in the
same message submit a proposal (known as the case's Standardisation
Proposal) which would, if adopted:
* change the rules so that if substantially similar circumstances
to the circumstances leading to the case being called occur in
the future, the analogous statement would be obviously true (or
false if the judgement was a negative judgement), and
* modify the gamestate to be what it would be if the statement of
the case had been true at the time that the case was called (or
false if the judgement was a negative judgement).
Whenever an Agoran Decision on a Standardisation Proposal is resolved as
REJECTED or FAILED QUORUM, an appeal concerning the assignment of
judgement in the question on resolution of the associated inquiry case
is initiated.
}}}
}}}}
--
ais523
