Proto: Make ISTIDing the default method for all CANs
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:25 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The question at hand is whether the Rulekeepor assigning rule numbers
> works. The caller argues that it doesn't, because the rules specify that e
> CAN do so but does not provide a method.
>
> This appears to last have been litigated in CFJ 2981.
>
> It was judged TRUE (i.e. rule numbers work) on a loophole in the wording.
> A follow-up proposal. P6992 by Murphy and omd, removed that loophole and
> attempted to make rule numbers work without it. The relevant parts of rule
> 2141 (now /14) haven't changed since.
>
> So legislative intent is very explicitly for this to work. Presumably, the
> authors expected this to work as follows (quoting from 2141/14):
>
> - "However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set
> rule aspects as described elsewhere in this rule."
> - "Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and former
> rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor."
> - Therefore, the Rulekeepor CAN "assign" ID numbers to rules.
>
> The question, then, is whether this sufficiently specifies a method for
> setting the ID number. There's an argument to be made that the Rulekeepor
> "assigns" the ID when e publishes a ruleset containing that number. It's
> certainly tempting to go with the interpretation that makes the rules work,
> but I don't think I can justify this interpretation, for a few reasons:
>
> First, it's far from the only interpretation. Other reasonable readings of
> the ruleset would be that the rule gained the ID number as soon as the
> rulekeepor decides on the number, or that e must explicitly give rules
> numbers by announcement. It's hard to justify picking this interpretation
> over the others.
>
> Second, and more importantly, Agora has moved in recent times towards
> assuming CANs without methods do not work. This is in many ways a matter of
> game custom, but there have been some attempts to codify this custom, so
> I'll be considering legislative intent heavily here.
>
> This shift was codified in P7928, which caused Rule 2125/10 to read, in
> part: {
> A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and
> only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the
> given action.
> }
>
> In a comment, the proposal explains that, after it's passing, "in general,
> "by announcement" is NOT implied". Sounds like we've got pretty clear
> evidence that this is the policy, right? Wrong. Enter everybody's favorite
> proposal, Statutory Instrumentation (8354). It rephrased the relevant
> provision to "including by limiting the methods to perform that action to
> those specified within it", notably dropping the word "explicit". The
> question then, is whether this was an intended weakening, or simply an
> insignificant rephrasing.
>
> Alexis, the author of 8354, was certainly aware of the significance of
> that word "explicit"; right in the middle of drafting of that proposal, e
> issued a judgement in CFJ 3793 that discusses at length the meaning of that
> word in 2125 (finding that, in a similar situation to the one we're dealing
> with today, an implied method was not enough).[^1] There was also a lot of
> discussion of this issue by other players at the time. However, there seems
> to have said anything about changes to this provision in Statutory
> Instrumentation, so it seems unlikely that Alexis intended to make a change
> here.
>
> Therefore, I find that game custom and the rules are clear that CANs
> without fairly explicit methods don't work. I find FALSE.
>
> So, what are the implications of this?
>
> Rule IDs are significant for two things: referring to rules, and
> last-resort precedence. For the former, I don't think there's an issue -
> each rule only has one purported number, so the references remain
> unambiguous and clear. For the latter, it's more of an issue, but I'm not
> aware if we've had any situations where this is relevant lately.
>
> [^1]: also, that CFJ has this magnificent sentence, which I can't not
> quote:
> In conclusion, this is a typical example of the rules say I do without
> saying how, therefore I do, which has plagued Agora for a long time
> but possibly not for as long as I say I do, therefore I do has.
>
> Gaelan
>
> ---
>
> Evidence:
>
> Proposal 6992 (Democratic, AI=3.0) by Murphy
> (coauth: omd)
> Fix rule numbers
>
> Ratify all rule ID numbers in the document purported to be the
> Short Logical Ruleset and published on or about Thu, 3 Mar 2011
> 14:40:44 -0500.
>
> Amend Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability) by replacing "modify"
> with "set or modify".
>
> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing this
> text:
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are
> strictly ordered.
>
> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor shall assign
> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>
> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> substantive aspects of the rule.
>
> with this text:
>
> Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.
>
> Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a
> rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign
> a title to it by announcement as soon as possible.
>
> For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
> the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
> substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
> elsewhere in this rule.
>
> ---
>
> Proposal ID: 7928
> Title: no we can't
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: G.
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions) by replacing:
>
> Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the Rules.
>
> with:
> A Restricted Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and
> only
> using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the
> given
> action.
>
> [this over-arching protection means in general, "by announcement"
> is NOT implied. I just want to put this in place and absolutely
> clarify the ruleset if it passes, and we can add the MMI change later
> if desired].
>
> ---
>
>
>
