status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4027
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4027 ===============================
This proposal introduces "any ambiguity" into all rule changes.
==========================================================================
Caller: 4st
Judge: Murphy
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by 4st: 08 May 2023 14:39:14
Assigned to Murphy: 08 May 2023 16:55:33
Judged FALSE by Murphy: 14 May 2023 23:15:00
==========================================================================
Caller's note:
Er typo [in the CFJ statement]: "This proposal introduces" should be
"This contract introduces"
Caller's Evidence:
I create and join the following contract (new! clearly saying what proposal
can do!):
{
Players can leave this contract at any time.
When a player makes a rule change via proposal, that proposal CAN directly
apply that rule change to private information in this contract, even if the
author
is not party to this contract. This contract has private information that
is a copy
of the Agoran ruleset.
}
Caller's Arguments:
Arguments FOR: "change/alter/modify/update/amend/fix a rule/the power/the
title to read", "delete/destroy/shred/eliminate a rule", and
"create/spawn/induce a rule" are presumed to introduce ambiguity even
though all seem pretty clear that they want to make a rule/power/title be
something, repeal a rule, or enact a rule. Repeal a portion of a rule seems
to introduce a similar ambiguity. THUS, this contract would introduce a
global ambiguity: did the author mean to do the rule change to the
contract... or the rule? (See Rule 105 "Any ambiguity in the specification
of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect."
Arguments AGAINST: It should be implied that things in Agora are reasonable
unless otherwise stated. EG Amend the power of something should be a valid,
unambiguous rule change, because it is reasonable to interpret it that way.
(Another argument against that may make this matter unfortunately trivial:
R217 means the rules take precedence over contracts, although the rules are
silent on whether this introduces ambiguity, however, the fact that I have
to ask implies that it is so?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
This contract doesn't introduce ambiguity of any sort.
First, just because a proposal making a rule change CAN apply it to the
contract's copy of the rules, doesn't mean that it does. It only does if
the proposal says it does.
Second, just because a proposal making a rule change does apply it to
the contract's copy of the rules, doesn't mean that it applies it /only/
to the contract's copy of the rules. It only does if the proposal says
it does. And in that case, it's unambiguously not a rule change.
Furthermore, even if a more carefully worded contract made it ambiguous
whether a proposal making a rule change also affected something defined
by the contract, that wouldn't be an ambiguity in the rule change
itself, but an ambiguity in a side effect of that rule change (or of the
proposal itself).
I judge FALSE.
==========================================================================
