On 5/10/23 13:19, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > Thank you for your copyediting, I know it's not an opinion you want > officialized. > > Hopefully the following draft is more amenable, as I have fully removed all > three offending sections. > > > (Draft ruling) > Summary of Evidence: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html > Rule 217/12 (Power=3) > 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, but may constructively make reasonable > clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a > clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without > changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without > causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent > with its text. > > 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 105/23 (Power=3) > Rule Changes > > When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can > generally: > [...] > 6. change the power of a rule. > > A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. > Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. > > Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that > change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation > in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity > for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. > > A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its > full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear > specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at > least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise > take effect. > > This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be > created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become > a rule or cease to be a rule. > > The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe > Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"? > > We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." to > mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to change > the power of that rule. > > We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." > to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive > definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of the > rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule. > > This second reading is unreasonable, and borders on bad-faith (despite the > good intentions of bringing this matter up): the player who wrote the > proposal had clear intentions of changing the rule based on further context > of the proposal, and provided further commentary that the power should be > at that level. Furthermore, this reading would also posit that the author > of the proposal violated No Faking: The commentary does not align with > "doing nothing", and would thus be falsey, and "doing nothing" is misleading > because it has purported to do something.
This isn't true. Violations of No Faking require (and required at the time) the statement to be knowingly false, not just false, and be made with intent to mislead. Clearly that wasn't the case here. > > Per rule 217, "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." > > Specifically, the text is silent on the definition of ambiguity. > > To reach a judgement on this matter: > Per past judgements: CFJ 1460 has precedence that for something to be clear, > players must understand it. (this is not a strong foundation) > (Players seemed to have understood the intent of Proposal 8639, and > considered it unambiguous at the time, and even liked it: the proposal was > adopted. The ruleset was modified by Janet, and the question was not > brought up on its efficacy of power change for over a year.) Minor nit: I updated the report. I didn't update the ruleset itself. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
