On 2/14/24 20:16, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote:
> Counterarguments/Gratuitous arguments TRUE:
>> 1. Does text specify a rule change?
>> 2. If so, is it unambiguous what the text of the rule to be enacted is?
>> As to 1, the text makes no mention of a "rule", only "enact[ing]"
>> something. There is at least one thing other than a rule that can be
>> "enacted" in the game: a regulation. I don't see any reason to read in
>> the specification that this is a rule when the text doesn't say it.
>> As to 2, there are no delimiters or indentation indicating whether both
>> of the paragraphs are to be enacted, or only the first one. This also
>> seems to make the change ambiguous.
> Firstly, an appeal to popularity (Pathos): such a proposal was voted on and
> adopted 4 to 1 (not taking account of voting strength.) and such an issue
> was only brought up *after* adoption by the player who was against the
> proposal. (This is probably a moot point.)
This is immaterial, and I'm a bit annoyed by the implication that I
wouldn't be doing my job properly if I supported the proposal policy-wise.
> Secondly, an appeal to kindness (Ethos): such a proposal was proposed by a
> new player, should we not give them the benefit of the doubt for their
> intention? (Also probably a moot point.)
This is also immaterial. Interpreting proposals differently based on who
wrote them is not something there's any textual or precedential basis
for, and it's not a can of worms that ought to be opened.
> Thirdly, an appeal to logic (where Agora does most of its business):
> {{{
> Firstly, "any ambiguity" and "unambiguous" should have the same meaning of
> "ambiguous", the base word.
> Specifically, in rule 217:
> "Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to
> be void and without effect."
> is/should be equivalent to saying it in the positive, something like
> "A lack of any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> change to be valid and with effect."
> or
> "Unambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> valid and with effect."
I disagree. I think, in context, this sounds like a higher standard
("*any* ambiguity (at all)" causes the rule change to fail is roughly
how I read it). If R105 meant the normal "unambiguous" or "clear and
unambiguous" standard, it would use that.
In any case, I don't think this would meet the normal "by announcement"
standard anyway.
> Secondly, although the following arguments are not direct-forward
> reasoning, direct-forward reasoning per Rule 217 is only for definitions
> and prescriptions defined by the rules. When speaking to ambiguity, this is
> not defined or prescribed by the rules. Therefore, these arguments of proof
> by contradiction can be taken into account without breaking any rules.
This argument seems... questionable. I think most of what the rules do
is "prescribe" things.
> Secondly, the thing to enact is either:
> 1.
> "February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day."
> or
> 2.
> "February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day.
>
> At 00:00 UTC on Radiance Day, all players are awarded 10 Radiance."
>
> If Option 1 is the case, regardless of the thing to enact, then there is
> hidden latent gamestate associated with time. This seems unreasonable and
> generally undesired.
Even if there was "latent gamestate", the gamestate would have no
effect, since the rules don't examine that gamestate in any way.
> Secondly, with regard to the kind of thing being enacted, we have two
> things that are generally associated with "enact": rules and regulations.
> If it were a regulation, then it would not be capable of awarding Radiance.
> It would also have a Promulgator, and who that is is probably debateable.
> This is contrary to the surface-level intention of the proposal (to create
> a holiday and have something happen on that holiday), and thereby, seems
> unreasonable.
> If it is a rule being enacted, then it would be capable of awarding
> Radiance, and the tracker of the thing itself would be the Rulekeepor,
> which seems reasonable.
> And... If there is any other thing associated with enact, I don't think it
> would align with the surface-level intention either.
>
> Therefore, by contradiction, it is a rule with the text
> "February 29 is a Holiday known as Radiance Day.
>
> At 00:00 UTC on Radiance Day, all players are awarded 10 Radiance."
The fact that the proposal didn't specify "rule" or "regulation", and
that you have to try to figure out which it *really meant* is evidence
that there is, in fact, ambiguity.
We've also heard from at least one player (nix, on Discord) that e
specifically thought it was *not* a rule change because it didn't
mention a "rule".
> Arguments AGAINST:
> The method of the rule change was not clearly and unambiguously stated. The
> method being "Proposal takes effect".
> This would mean a lot of proposals have not enacted rule changes. :)
> Quote from Rule 205:
> 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.
>
I will be addressing this to list shortly.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
