On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 1:32 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 13:16 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by > > saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder > > that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also > > note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a > > duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029 > > *does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and > > CFJ 2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not > > 100% cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal > > effect. And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I > > wouldn't expect 4st to know about them. > > Are there any Marvy at the moment? IIRC the definition was something > along the lines of "a player who has increased voting power but is not > an officer", but I can't properly remember it (it was over a decade ago > at this point). > > That said, I suspect the word in R2029 is currently undefined: I don't > think "a definition that was in place at the time the rule was adopted" > is one of the things that we can legally use to interpret the rules. > (In fact, given that rules of lower power can't outright define terms > in higher-power rules – just clarify them – it may be very hard to > define a term in a power-4 rule at all if it has no common meaning, and > after this much time, I doubt it has a common meaning.)
It was CFJ 2585, and you (Judge ais523) found the exact opposite of what you just said above. In https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2585, Judge ais523 wrote: > However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881, > and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical > significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the > meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I > can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when > the Fountain was created. Recently, Judge 4st found, in CFJ 3989, that there just wasn't sufficient evidence to find anyone guilty of this, explicitly refuting CFJ 2585 (unfortunately the evidence/context was left out of this case record): https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3989. In refuting CFJ 2585, Judge 4st also specifically refuted CFJ 1534, which dealt with continuity of the "First Speaker" term, which you cited/upheld in CFJ 2585: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1534 Those 4 cases form the complete set of relevant cases that turn up search the CFJ github for Marvy/Marvies (1881, 2585, 2589 and 3989) plus CFJ 1534 for the more general finding that concerned old terms of art like "First Speaker": -G.
