The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
=============================== CFJ 4023 ===============================
Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.
==========================================================================
Caller: Aspen
Barred: Janet
Judge: 4st
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29
Assigned to 4st: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote:
> On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote:
> >
> >> [Proposal 8639
> >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change.
> >
> > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to
> > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even
> > by r105 standards?
> > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a
> > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
>
>
> Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said.
>
> I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
> title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to
> that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule
> rather than that my reading is wrong).
>
> My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only
> and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is
> inherently ambiguous.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
Gratuitous FOR:
"ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't
understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without
clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it.
Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the
text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and
AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power.
Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it
does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the
fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change
but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should
be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would
be surplusage.
Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to
compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear
e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to
argue the exact opposite of what the intent was.
Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes
other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to
a problematic cycle. Consider the following:
1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em.
Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text.
2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the
clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along,
but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry
right?
3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as
proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be
read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also
perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original
language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding
clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's
always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and
might have been perfectly clear to most people.
This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to
weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound reasoning,
nor does it make for good rules-writing. Whatever else the merits of
this particular case, that logic should not be a reason for a finding,
one way or the other.
In terms of the merits of the case itself:
Communication in Agora is a balance between precision and free
expression. In particular, it's not necessarily good to privilege
"exact incantations", and R217 is direct and explicit in the use of
synonyms. While the R105 clarity standards tip "rule change"
specification to be more towards precision, it's not absolute. And
also - we don't tend to privilege verbs alone, but verbs in context of
object or subject. In particular, amend, change, alter etc. are all
synonyms. All of the R105 rule change types that involve changing an
existing rule (amending rule text, retitling a rule, and changing the
power of a rule) are differentiated by their object (rule text, title,
or power), NOT the verb used, which is essentially 'change'. While
"retitle" embeds the object in the verb and so can only be used to
specify titles, using "change" or "amend" with one of those specified
objects is absolutely or perfectly clear as to which action is meant -
keyed by the object type, not the exact synonym for "change" that was
used.
In the proposal in question[0], the "uncertain" proposal clause was:
> Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3.
This is perfectly and abundantly clear as to the object (power), the
double amend/change is harmless synonym pairing and emphatic, and the
action (of changing power) should be absolutely clear, even at the
R105 standard.
[0]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
==========================================================================
