status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3736 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3736 =============================== When the Referee MUST impose the Cold Hand of Justice, e CAN do so by announcement. ========================================================================== Caller: D. Margaux Judge: omd Judgement: FALSE ========================================================================== History: Called by D. Margaux: 14 Jun 2019 15:27:27 Assigned to omd: 14 Jun 2019 16:52:30 Judged FALSE by omd: 15 Jun 2019 03:04:38 omd files Motion to Reconsider: 17 Jun 2019 02:31:57 Judged FALSE by omd: 17 Jun 2019 04:43:12 ========================================================================== Caller's Arguments: omd wrote:
I initially read the CAN as attaching to the preceding SHALL rather than the following one. When read as intended, it authorizes the Referee to perform two actions. One is to "announce" the Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans, which e doesn't need authorization to do. The other is imposing the Cold Hand of Justice, which e does need authorization for, but... even with this proposal, I don't think anything states *how* e can impose the CHoJ (i.e. by announcement).
I don’t think our recent CFJs have addressed whether the Referee CAN impose the CHoJ by announcement. This logic implies that e CANNOT, and I think I agree with it. What a mess. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge omd's Original Arguments (pre-motion): The rabbit hole goes pretty deep: From Rule 2478: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by: - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp, as described elsewhere; or ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Rule 2557: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the violation, within the following guidelines: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Rule 2555: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, is to grant em N blots. To expunge a blot is to destroy it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Rule 2577: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To grant an entity an asset is to create it in eir possession. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There are actually two cases of poor drafting here. First, Rule 2478 does not explicitly state than an investigator CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice, merely that e SHALL. Does that actually "authorize" em to do so (Rule 2557), or does it merely create an obligation that's impossible to satisfy? I initially thought the latter. However, the wording ("SHALL conclude the investigation by... imposing the CHoJ") is fairly similar to "SHALL do X by announcement", which has been treated in the past as equivalent to "CAN do X by announcement, and SHALL" - see CFJ 1765 [1]. So I'll say it does trigger Rule 2557. Second, Rule 2557 does not mention a mechanism such as "by announcement", and as far as I can tell, neither does any of the other rules involved. Does it work anyway? Well, to start with, when Rule 2557 says "e CAN do so by levying a fine", does that imply "e CAN levy a fine", or is it simply saying that e CAN impose the CHoJ, assuming e has some existing mechanism of levying a fine? After all, if a rule says that, e.g., someone "CAN do X by announcement", which is roughly short for "CAN do X by announcing that e does X", it is not saying that e CAN announce that e does X. That wouldn't make sense, because according to the definitions in Rule 478, the ability to announce something is a matter of external reality rather than part of the gamestate. Instead, e needs an existing mechanism of announcing that e does X, which fortunately exists, and the rule is giving such an announcement the effect of actually doing X. Still, in this context, common sense suggests that Rule 2557 is trying to authorize em to levy a fine. If not, the rule would only make sense if the investigator were someone separately empowered to levy arbitrary fines, and "authoriz[ing] an investigator to impose the [CHoJ]" would effectively just mean permitting such a fine to satisfy the rules' desire for punishment for a given violation, as opposed to being treated as unrelated. But that interpretation seems strained given the wording, due to (among other things) the use of "authorize" and the mention of minimums and maximums. Besides, the rules don't give anyone the power to levy arbitrary fines, and AFAIK never have, for as long as the current iteration of blots have existed. So Rule 2557 authorizes em to levy a fine, but doesn't say how. In that case, CFJ 3425 [2] is on point:
Therefore, any "attempt" to perform a CAN, where the CAN is not qualified by a method, will succeed if we can say that a legal "attempt" took place.
For an attempt to change a regulated quantity, the attempt must communicate with the recordkeepor, and we generally require clear communication. A message to a discussion forum would not qualify, as following a discussion forum is not required. However, sending a public message would clearly legally communicate the attempt to all players, and so would be a legal "attempt" to perform the action.
I'll honor the precedent here. When the Referee is authorized to impose the CHoJ, e can create Blots by communicating eir attempt to do so to the recordkeepor for Blots – and sending a public message is one way of doing so. This does create an odd result, because the recordkeepor for Blots is... the Referee emself! Sending a public message is *one* way for em to communicate with emself, but e could also do so purely mentally; there are no grounds to deny em that ability, as long as e understands clearly what e means to communicate to emself. That seems a little like an absurdity, but not really, or at least it's not much worse than the result in CFJ 3425. It's odd that the Referee can change important gamestate without telling anyone, true, but not that much odder than being able to change it by only telling one other person. It's odd that we can never know for sure what the Referee thought to emself, but then, so too can two people communicate and refuse to reveal what was said, or even lie about it. (And even when two people are involved, there is no requirement that the means of communication be electronic or durable; they could communicate verbally, if they were physically nearby.) The Referee is, at least, obligated to publicize the results of eir actions indirectly, in the form of eir weekly report on Blot holdings. Though that doesn't help if e's acting in bad faith: even when mental actions are involved, eir report is still merely descriptive of the gamestate, not something that normatively establishes it; in other words, it can be false. (Unless it self-ratifies.) But again, not so different from CFJ 3425. Thus, in spirit, this CFJ is TRUE. But there are two technicalities regarding the actual CFJ statement:
When the Referee MUST impose the Cold Hand of Justice, e CAN do so by announcement.
One is the same as in CFJ 3425:
FALSE on a technicality; the action succeeds, but via the announcement of attempt and R2152, not "CAN by announcement" as per R478. This technicality is important, as it ensures that "CAN by method X" isn't severable into "CAN (by announcement attempt) by method X".
The other is that the condition in the CFJ statement, "the Referee MUST impose the Cold Hand of Justice", is overly broad; it could be true if, e.g., the Referee pledged to impose the CHoJ on someone who has not been finger-pointed, which would *not* allow em to do so. For both of those reasons, I judge CFJ 3736 FALSE. [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1765 [2] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3425 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge omd's Final Arguments: I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in 2014). Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is impossible after all. I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125. I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so. ==========================================================================