On 2/10/2022 7:52 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> I recuse cuddlybanana from CFJ 3941, and note that an apology or
> explanation is in order.
>
> I assign G. to be the judge of CFJ 3941. ("Rule 2465 is a Device.")
proto-judgement:
First, "the device" (the switch) is different than "a device".
Critically, "the device" (with the definite article) is not part of the
general set of "devices", but rather distinct, so rules that refer to
"devices" generally do not apply to "the device" switch. This is fairly
clear from R2655 (The Mad Engineer) which defines the device (switch) and
always refers to it using the definite article. I find in the context of
the current rules, that difference is substantial and not a minor
grammatical point.[*]
Second, this may go without saying, but R2654 (The Device) is not a device
or The Device by virtue of its title alone - that's just a label for a
rule, not a definition of a rule.
Third, this judgement does not opine on whether "voting devices", or
"Agoran devices" or "Platinum devices" etc. fit into the set of devices
referred to individually as "a device".
With those preliminaries, the text in question is:
* A Device is an entity with positive Power.
Further, a look at R2654 at the time of the CFJ shows that this bullet
stands on its own (it is not contextual with previous or following list
items).
This mirrors the text in R1688:
An instrument is an entity with positive Power.
That text is taken as the definitional description of "instrument". There
is no contradictory text indicating another definition for "instrument",
so this straightforwardly defines the term.
The mirror text, then, is similarly clear - it defines "a device" as a
term for entities with positive power. Furthermore, all of the other
clauses referring to "devices" talk about additional abilities for devices
without being definitions. So there is nothing in the rules to contradict
the basic definitional idea that "a device" is an additional term for an
"entity with positive power".
TRUE.
[*] An example here is the distinguishing of "The Lord" from "a lord". If
you were speaking about the House of Lords, you'd say "the lords moved to
adjourn" without meaning to include The Lord, and the fact that "the
lords..." uses the definite article without the set including "The Lord"
is reasonably clear from context.
