Actually, Arbitor willing, you could pass this problem to me if you'd like. Because atm, I don't fear the SHOULDN'Ts and whatnot and I'll barge through crimes in order to give a Judgement that I feel is right.
On Saturday, May 13, 2023, ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2023-05-08 at 09:54 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > The below CFJ is 4026. I assign it to ais523. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4026 > > > > =============================== CFJ 4026 > =============================== > > > > In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as > > to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. > > > > ============================================================ > ============== > > Here's an excerpt from a proposal (8867) that was adopted recently: > > > [ > > The goal of this is to expand on our banning system and implement some > > clearly defined values into the rules of Agora. This comprises two main > > changes. > > > > The first removes the "free speech" clause from R478 and replaces it > > with a bill of expectations that largely seek to maximize participation > > while recognizing ways in which that might reasonably be abridged. > > > [snip] > > > > Amend R478 by deleting the following text: > > > > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of > > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player > shall > > be prohibited from participating in the Fora > [snip] > > The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that > prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in > gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on > various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking > me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the > CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict. > Additionally, I can't even work out whether the statement of the CFJ is > true or not without attempting to interpret the rules, something which > might turn out to be illegal (and for which I can't know, before > attempting it, whether it's illegal or not). > > Normally, when judging a CFJ whose statement has been posed > incorrectly, I provide arguments to let people know the truth or > otherwise of the statement that they probably meant to ask. However, > with the protections that would normally be provided to me repealed, I > do not wish to attempt that in this case. Instead, I will simply note > that the caller has asked the wrong question: this is a question of > interpretation, and various parts of the ruleset affect the meaning of > various other parts of the ruleset. It isn't relevant to the game > whether a hypothetical action might or might not breach a *particular* > rule if, e.g., the same action is permitted by a different rule. > > When trying to judge this CFJ, I got as far as "OK, there's a > distinction between 'the rules proscribe this action' and 'rule 2125 > proscribes this action' – does that matter here", looked at the other > rules that might matter, discovered that one of them had had the > relevant sentence fragment repealed, and realised I was on dangerous > ground even attempting to understand the rule to the extent that I > could judge, so I stopped. I did, however, realise that it doesn't > matter whether or not rule 2125 bans an action if the same action is > permitted by a rule that outprecedences it (and that there are some > rules that might, e.g. the last paragraph of rule 217). So the relevant > question here is whether the *Rules as a whole* are proscribing > unreglated actions. This is not the question that the caller asked. > > I judge CFJ 4026 IRRELEVANT. I note that there's no point in calling a > corrected CFJ under the current ruleset: rule 591 doesn't actually > require CFJ judges to give appropriate rulings to judgements, and rule > 2125 could easily make it illegal to judge a corrected CFJ as TRUE > (judging a CFJ is a regulated action, thus a prohibition on proscribing > unregulated actions wouldn't affect that), so if the judge of the > resulting CFJ wanted to ensure e was following the rules, eir safest > course of action would be to judge it FALSE without actually attempting > to interpret the rules in question – and as such, the CFJ verdict would > not be of any use in resolving the controversy. > > We should probably amend rule 2125 to have the wording that was > probably intended (something along the lines of "the correct > interpretation of the rules is one that does not proscribe unregulated > actions") and/or to reinstate a protection against the rules > accidentally making it illegal to, e.g., honestly judge a CFJ. Then it > would be possible for judges to attempt to determine what the rule in > question meant without risking a rules violation in the process. > > -- > ais523 > Judge, CFJ 4026 >
