status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3754
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3754 ===============================
Rule 2598 has been repealed.
==========================================================================
Caller: twg
Judge: G.
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by twg: 05 Jul 2019 14:03:40
Assigned to G.: 08 Jul 2019 01:28:49
Judged TRUE by G.: 12 Jul 2019 21:13:17
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Argument for FALSE - R2598 says/said:
8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. When
this Rule is triggered, the following events happen in order:
(a) the Politics Rules are automatically repealed in ascending
numerical order (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the
Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in ascending numerical
order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this Rule is
automatically repealed.
It's not clear to me that those events can/could actually occur - the
rule is/was just stating that they happen, rather than stating that it
(or something else with Power >= 3.0) makes them happen. R105 is pretty
unambiguous that rule changes can only be caused by instruments, which
is why we have verbose things like this in R106:
When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if
the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted,
and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is
set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it
takes effect. Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
changes that it specifies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by Jason Cobb:
This was already brought up by omd [0], and Aris gave a response arguing
that it would work [1].
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040615.html
[1]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-June/054363.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G.'s Arguments:
In saying that a Rule "causes" something to happen, it's worth briefly
breaking down types of causality as used in Agora. In past, we've applied
the Aristotelian model of four causes[0], in particular when discussing
elements of free will within Agora. With such a mapping, the full effect
of a "Rules-caused" rule change of this nature is:
As described by the Rules (formal cause), a person (final cause) makes an
forum announcement (material cause) which invokes the use of a method/tool
(efficient/moving cause) to effect a rule change.
An instrument, under this mapping, is a wielded tool and part of a R2125
"method" for performing a given action - which is why it has to be
specified explicitly that the Rule is the wielded instrument (as opposed
to merely being the descriptor of the method). This separates the Rule's
role as a descriptor (formal cause, always assumed to be a role of the
rules) from its role as a method/instrument (efficient cause) which must
be explicitly described.
This is worth pointing out as it reveals how we should use the language -
we don't always have to say the "the Player CAN cause the Rule to cause
the change" using "cause" explicitly. We can be a bit more flexible -
any sort of language that describes the Rule as a "tool" for the change
would generally work. E.g. "a player CAN by announcement make this change
using this Rule" or "a player CAN use this Rule via an announcement to
repeal..." is fine.
In the case before the court, a person "triggers" Rule 2598 and then the
changes happen. "Trigger" is a clear use-word for a type of tool and the
effects of repeal are strongly associated with the triggering of the Rule.
Therefore, on those grounds, R2598 CAN cause its own repeal as described
in the rule. This description is clear enough to satisfy R105 criteria
for absolute clarity in terms of the method and instrument used for the
described Rule changes.
A review of the sequence of events made by this judge shows that the
proper announcements and support actions were made to cause this rule's
repeal, so no other grounds for failure seem to exist.
I find TRUE.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes
==========================================================================
