The below CFJ is 3902. I assign it to Murphy.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3902
=============================== CFJ 3902 ===============================
Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
root".
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: Murphy
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 19 Mar 2021 22:12:09
Assigned to Murphy: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
R2029/0 as initially adopted (in 2002) included the text "by Goethe,
Steve, Murphy, root". In 2017, a search/replace of the history section
erroneously replaced "Goethe" with "G." in subsequent published copies.
In the 24 Feb 2019 SLR publication, the rule appeared as follows:
> Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
> Town Fountain
>
> /\ /\
> / \ / \
> T
> his
> Power-04
> Rule (the first ever)
> was placed to honor
> The Agoran Spirit Of The Game
> by G., Steve, Murphy, root
> and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
> on our works, ye Marvy, but do
> always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris!
Proposal 8175 (adopted 08 May 2019) ratified the 24 Feb 2019 SLR using
this text:
> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 24th of February,
> 2019, available here [1].
>
> [1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012797.html
Assuming the ratification changed the text itself (from "Goethe" to "G.")
there are at least two possibilities for revision number:
1. The ratification ratified that the original 2029/0 has the new text.
2. The ratification changed the rule text, and that incremented the
revision number, leaving 2029/0 as containing "Goethe", and 2029/1
containing "G."
Gratuitous addition:
3. A third possibility is more worrying. If any change of text results in
a new revision number (by common definition), then an attempt to change
rules text via ratification of an SLR (with revision numbers) would fail
as per R1551, as it would "add inconsistencies between the gamestate and
the rules". This would mean that any time a ratification would have
actually changed rules text, it instead failed, leaving the current SLR
state rather uncertain.
==========================================================================
