On 6/12/2022 9:35 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 is a Rule."
>
> CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has performed at least
> one amendment of a Rule."
>
> CFJ: "The entity at one point known as Rule 2658 has been amended at
> once during the time when it is/was a Rule."
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Rule 2658/0 (Power=3)
> The Winds Die Down
>
> When the wind dies down, the following happen in order:
>
> * The following rules are repealed in order: R2620 "Cards & Sets",
> R2623 "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", R2629 "Victory
> Auctions", R2624 "Card Administration", R2622 "Pending
> Proposals", R2651 "Proposal Recycling", and R2653 "Buying
> Strength".
>
> * All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in
> ascending numerical order by removing all text between and
> including each "~>" and the first following "<~".
>
> * This rule is repealed.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft arguments:
Referring to the *'d list items in rule 2658/0 as (1), (2), (3):
The Winds Died Down recently, beginning the procedure described in R2658.
It's pretty clear to me that all of the repeals of (1) went through, and
I can't think of an argument that those repeals failed.
For what happens when (2) is performed:
* All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in
ascending numerical order by removing all text between and
including each "~>" and the first following "<~".
First of all, R2658 is the highest-numbered rule that contains the cited
text (the ""s do not escape the text from being amended). Rule changes
are always sequential, so all of the rule changes before R2658 are
therefore amended successfully. Then, this rule self-amends itself to this:
* All rules including the text "" are amended in
ascending numerical order by removing all text between and
including each "".
I can't think of why this would fail up to this instant in the procedure,
so I find CFJ 3966 TRUE and I find CFJ 3967 TRUE.
So now we're midway through a rules-procedure and the procedure has been
amended. The next question is whether the amended sentence would do
anything. I find that it would not. On the principle that "all sets
include the empty set", all rules include "". However, it's unclear
*where* in the rule the blank text is "included", so the idea of "between"
here is ambiguous, given the strict R105-standard of rules changes.
So whether or not the above text attempts to go back and amend every rule
(because every rule contains "" and we reevaluate the set of rules that
the "All" refers to), or whether the determination of "all rules that
include the text" was only performed once at the beginning of step (2)
when the criteria involved ~> and <~, the net effect is the same. No
rules were changed by (2) after R2658 was so-amended - either R2658 was
the last amendment in the established set of rules, or an amendment for
all rules containing "" was attempted that all failed due to ambiguity
(the judgements don't depend on which of these is true).
The final CFJ (CFJ 3965) comes down to whether (3) "this rule is repealed"
succeeded after the amendments/failed amendements in (2) were complete?
The question comes down to this - if a rules procedure is triggered by an
event (like the Winds), but the procedure isn't finished and the rule is
amended while the procedure is ongoing, does the process continue because
it was started under the original trigger, or does it stop because the new
rule contains a new process that hasn't been triggered yet?
We're actually a bit mixed on that, in precedent/custom. Let's say:
"When a player judges a CFJ, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL award em 15
coins in a timely manner by announcement"
is amended by only changing the value of the award:
"When a player judges a CFJ, the Arbitor CAN and SHALL award em 20
coins in a timely manner by announcement"
In this case, if a player makes a judgement under the old rule, and the
rule changes before the Arbitor acts, the player loses both. The old
award is no longer performable, and the new award conditions haven't been
triggered.
On the other hand, let's say we have an auction or election procedure that
has been initiated (where the steps are all in a single rule), and we're
trying to patch something wrong with the concluding part of the
election/auction. Often, in that case, we take care to say "all
elections/auctions in progress terminate with no winner" or similar,
assuming that amending the part of the rule dealing with the end state
doesn't end the process started earlier in the rule (and since we've
effectively finished step (2), the clause governing the next step (3)
hasn't been amended.
At this point, this proto pretty much runs dry. I can see clear and
reasonable arguments for both sides of whether or not (3) occurred, so
I'll stop this proto for discussion for a bit (hopefully discussion
informed by the findings for the other linked cfjs, above).
-G.
