Thoughts appreciated, although I'm not going to make substantial
changes unless the arguments are extremely compelling. H. Arbitor, I
am not interested in judging any more cases (unless I explicitly favor
them or change my mind) till the end of the winter holiday. This has
been unusually exhausting.
-Aris
---
Judge's arguments for CFJs 3611-3612
This is a continuation of the the same debacle that was considered in CFJ 3605.
Given how many CFJs that situation has now caused, a more detailed summary
is in order for the historical record. As mentioned in that CFJ, V.J. Rada
scammed using Referee to illegally claim 3000 favors (almost certainly enough
to win the game, absent Herculean external intervention, which promptly
occurred). Eir specific scam was that e could point eir finger (the current
procedure for formally accusing someone of illegal action) an infinite number
of times, committing a trivial violation of the rules each time. E then awarded
emself a green card (null penalty for a small violation) each time, and
was eligible to claim a reward. Well, a least this was eir plot. It failed,
because the message where e did everything except the rewards got caught
in the scam filter and never went through. The rewards succeeded, but V.J
Rada was punished for eir actions. E received a Blue Card from the new
Referee, later the subject of CFJ 2426. E also purportedly received a Black Card
from the Prime Minister by executive order, now the subject of this CFJ.
Pro-Radists, lead, unsurprisingly, by Rada emself, make three arguments
claiming that the Black Card was ineffective:
1. Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules," invalidated the adoption of rule 2507,
"Black Cards".
2. The Prime Minister's executive order was without effect because it
lacked the valid cause required by Rule 2426, "Cards".
3. The penalty of the card had no effect in any case, because V.J. Rada was
a player at the time the penalty purportedly took effect.
I now consider each in turn. I could stop after finding one claim true, but
that would mean deserting my obligation to fully resolve the issues and would
only prompt more CFJs.
First, the change was indeed invalidated. Rule 217 states that:
"Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would (1)
prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve matters of
controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will
thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from causing formal
reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished,
is wholly void and without effect."
This only operates on the rule change itself, and it must therefore be evaluated
at the time of the proposal's adoption [1]. One reading would be that the change
must have that effect immediately. This would permit a change that stopped
someone from CFJing, but provided a nano-second time delay first. In my view,
this interpretation is far to conservative of its construction of "prevent". The
next broader reading would be to suppose that the action fails only if it
is certain that the person would eventually lose their ability to CFJ.
This is facially a reasonable interpretation, but it not the only one,
and further is not in accordance with previous interpretation of the rule.
Reasonable max limits on CFJs have been accepted, but so has the requirement
that they must be reasonable in order to not, in practice, violate Rule 217.
I determine that the exact standard to be used is that no person can be
denied the substantive right to CFJ in the worst reasonably likely case.
This means that what amounts to a rate limit or is acceptable, but
most further requirements are probably not [2]. A rule that strips
someone of the ability to CFJ entirely, even as a punishment for crime CANNOT
meet this bar. Because Rule 2507 would do just that, its enactment entirely
failed.
The second issue is whether the card was issued (presuming the Black Card rule
existed, which it didn't). Rule 2426, "Cards", states, in part [3] that
an attempt to issue a card is INEFFECTIVE "if it attempts
to issue a card for an action or inaction which is not prohibited by law".
The Black Card was issued "for betraying the good faith placed in em
as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers
significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical
system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules
that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a
result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black
Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory." [2]
Betraying Agora's trust is not a crime. Although V.J. Rada did commit crimes,
they is not cited as a basis for the card. Rule 2451, "Executive Orders",
attempts to give V.J. Rada a card. Rule 2426 attempts to block this. They are
thus in conflict. Rule 1030, "Precedence between Rules", tells us how to
resolve such conflict. Going down the list: they are of the same power (2.0),
they don't say their precedence is decided by another rule, and neither of them
attempt to take precedence over or defer to the other with regard to
possibility, although Rule 2451 does claim precedence with regard to
permissibility. The conflict is thus resolved in favor of the rule with the
lower ID number. 2426 is less than 2451. The action was INEFFECTIVE, and no card
was ever issued.
The third issue is whether the Door was ever successfully Slammed upon V.J.
(presuming that the card was issued, which is wasn't). The Black Card rule
is intended to prevent cards from being issued to players, but the restriction
fails in this case due to rule precedence, as shown by Alexis when the card
was issued [4]. However, the Black Card rule provides another safeguard.
It says that "Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a person whose most
recent deregistration took place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding." The question here is whether the Door can
ever be slammed on a player. The phrasing is ambiguous, because it's unclear
whether it should be read "(player or person) who" or "player or (person
who)". I want to emphasize that this is textually unclear, and I do not
lightly resort to disambiguatory methods [5]. However, in an ambiguous
situation we should try to figure out what the rule means. Lawyers from
other jurisdictions have come up with a variety of tools, known as Cannons
of Construction, to help read statutory text [6]. Two are applicable here.
First is the rule against superfluity, which state that words should not be
intercepted in such a way that they have no effect (or, to put it another way,
such that their omission would not change the meaning of the rule).
Here, player would be meaningless if it were an antecedent of who. Under Rule
869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", a player merely is a registered person.
Saying "player or person" would render the word "player" superfluous, extremely
strong evidence that the rule should not be read that way. The other rule
is called the rule of the last antecedent [7]. It states that the last possible
antecedent should be preferred. This rule provides a uniform rule to deal with
situations of this kind, and I strongly recommend future judges apply it
wherever they're unsure (the first one is also useful, but less definitive).
The upshot of all this is that the correct nesting is "player or (person who)",
and the Door can never be Slammed on a registered players.
V.J. Rada's Black Card was apparently cursed. The rule providing for it didn't
exist, it was never issued, and it wouldn't have had any effect even if it
had been. Because the rule was never adopted, CFJ 3611 is TRUE, as the caller
argued. The restriction against Rada taking game actions was non-existent so
e could CFJ, making CFJ 3612 TRUE as well.
[1] None of the phrasing suggests retroactivity, and retroaction is such a rare
case that it must be applied only when it is very textually clear.
[2] I can't think of everything, but for an example of something else that might
work, a rule against nonsense or obvious CFJs, because there's no controversy.
[3] All players are very strongly ENCOURAGED to change the second paragraph
of Rule 2426 to a sensible list, rather than being a paragraph-length
sentence.
[4] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg30833.html
[5] There is a longstanding game principle that the rules should be read
literally if possible.
[6] Such rules are based in common sense, which gives them some game standing
under Rule 217.
[7] See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/last_antecedent_rule
Judge's evidence
Rule 2507/0 (Power=2.0)
Black Cards
A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the
game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not
a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad
faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no
more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to
issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is
INEFFECTIVE.
When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days,
any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad
sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or
take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a
person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir
consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rule 217/11 (Power=3.0)
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.
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
higher-powered rules.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
(1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
Rule 2426/9 (Power=2.0)
Cards
A Card is a recognition of a specific violation of the rules or
other manner of infraction that is awarded to the violator in
order to draw attention to eir disregard for the rule of law and,
depending on the type of Card, to impose a penalty.
Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by announcement. Any
attempt to issue a Card is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include (1)
the type of card being issued, (2) the name of the person being
issued the card (the bad sport), and (3) the specific reason for
the issuance of the card, or if it attempts to issue a person a
card for an action or inaction which e (more likely than not) did
not commit, or if it attempts to issue a card for an action or
inaction which is not prohibited by law, or if it attempts to
issue a type of card which is blatantly and obviously unsuited to
the conduct which constitutes the reason for its issuance or to
the person to which it is being issued, or if it is made more than
14 days after the conduct constituting the reason for the issuance
of the card, or if it attempts to issue a card to a player who has
already been issued a card for the conduct constituting the reason
for the issuance of the card.
Issuing Cards is secured with power threshold 1.7.
The types of Card are defined by the rules. A type of Card may
have a defined set of circumstances for which it is appropriate,
as well as a penalty which takes effect when a Card of that type
is issued. Unless otherwise specified by the rule defining a type
of Card, that Card type's penalty and circumstances for which it
is appropriate are secured at the power threshold of that rule. It
is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player person unless the
rule defining the card says otherwise.
Rule 2451/5 (Power=2.0)
Executive Orders
Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule, the
current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order by announcement
to perform the action(s) authorized by that Order.
Each Cabinet Order is associated with an office. The current Prime
Minister CANNOT issue more than one Cabinet Order associated with
the same office more than once in the same month, nor can e issue
a Cabinet Order associated with a vacant office.
The available Cabinet Orders are:
- Certiorari (Arbitor): The Prime Minister assigns emself as judge
of a specified open case.
- Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a
specified player. Notwithstanding rule 2426, the reason for the card
MAY be any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a
violation of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is
issued.
- Manifesto (Promotor): The Prime Minister distributes a specified
proposal in the Proposal Pool.
Rule 1030/12 (Power=3.2)
Precedence between Rules
In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
this rule, until the conflict is resolved.
- In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with
the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower
Power; otherwise,
- If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the
precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
conflicts; otherwise,
- If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes
precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless they
lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,
- If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,
- The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.
Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g. over
"all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie, considered
to be limited claims of precedence or deference that are
applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described within
the above sequence.
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
precedence. 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.
Rule 869/43 (Power=3.0)
How to Join and Leave Agora
Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to
the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.
Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered (default)
and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. Changes to citizenship
are secured. A registered person is a Player. To "register"
someone is to flip that person's Citizenship switch from
Unregistered to Registered.
An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
intends to become a player at that time. A player CAN deregister
(cease being a player) by announcement. If e does so, e CANNOT
register or be registered for 30 days.
A person, by registering, agrees to abide by the Rules. The Rules
CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without
that person's willful consent.
If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
month, then any player CAN deregister em with 3 Agoran Consent.
The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act without their express
or reasonably implied consent. The rules CANNOT compel players to
unduly harass non-players. A non-person CANNOT be a player, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding.
