status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4023 ===============================
Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.
==========================================================================
Caller: Aspen
Barred: Janet
Judge: 4st
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29
Assigned to 4st: 08 May 2023 16:53:01
Judged TRUE by 4st: 19 May 2023 20:03:44
==========================================================================
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge 4st's Evidence:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules
When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
with its text.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
(1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
generally:
[...]
6. change the power of a rule.
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
take effect.
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
a rule or cease to be a rule.
Judge 4st's Arguments:
The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe
Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"?
We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." to
mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to change
the power of that rule.
We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
to mean to change some other Rule 879, other than the one in the Agoran
ruleset, and change its power. For example, this is also Rule 879:
https://www.medicaid.gov/tmsis/dataguide/validation-rules/rule-879/
Or, we could posit that there was a typo, in order to refer to Quorum:
it was meant to be rule 875:
https://regulations.justia.com/states/iowa/agency-875/athletics-commissioner/chapter-170/rule-875-170-6/
or rule 877:
https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_877-010-0005
Or, it could mean some other unpublished Rule 879.
We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive
definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of the
rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule.
This second reading is unreasonable, and is definitively bad faith:
What other rule would we be referring to? Despite not specifying that it
is referring to the rule in the Agoran ruleset, we can see this
interpretation is CLEARLY unreasonable, as there is no other context in
which this phrase does anything meaningful to Agora. We can determine how
unreasonable this reading is because we interpret and read context.
So... what can we make of the third reading? In the context of Agora,
it is normal to want to change the power of a rule. It also seems normal
to want to mislead someone. However, no misleading was done: the player
who wrote the proposal had clear intentions of changing the rule based on
further context of the proposal, and provided further commentary that the
power should be at that level. Furthermore, if e was trying to mislead us
to this result, it would have violated other rules and should have resulted
in a game penalty, and this was not the case. Despite the rule change being
unclear, from the context from the situation, paired with the fact that
"doing nothing" is usually not a desired outcome, leads me to believe that
this reading of the rule change is unreasonable.
However, my believe isn't something we should operate on, so
to reach a judgement on this matter:
Per rule 217, "Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game."
Per past judgements, CFJ 1460 has precedence that for something to be clear,
players must understand it.
The argument that this was clear is: Players seemed to have understood the
intent of Proposal 8639, and considered it unambiguous at the time, and even
liked it: the proposal was adopted. The ruleset was reported as such by
Janet, and the question was not brought up on its efficacy of power change
for over a year.
(Clear is usually paired with ambiguous, and as such, this is not a strong
foundation.)
Similarly, CFJ 3950 found that ambiguity was not present in a rule change,
and with a single statement, actually made multiple adjustments. This
proposal therefore may have made more changes, and also "done nothing",
in addition to its intended change.
With regard to this proposal and that CFJ, all 3 interpretations may
have occurred, and only one has any true effect on Agora.
Per common sense, "amend" means "change". Additionally, the context
provides support that the power was intended to be changed, not for the
proposal to do nothing with the power.
Per game custom, Proposal 8639 has been in effect for a long time as the
power it purported to put the rule as: we have been playing as if it was
power 3.
Additionally, we hold a strong standard: when in doubt, we should
operate reasonably. Reasonableness is the default. Is this third reading
unreasonable? Being discovered a year later, I would purport this to be so:
Agora is a contract between all players of Agora, and all players said
nothing about the inefficacy of the proposal for that period, thus I
conclude this reading is unreasonable.
Do I regret this was not brought up sooner? Absolutely! If the
interpretation
of the rule in this way was reasonable, as in, it brought some benefit to
the
player(s) who dispute the change, then I would have to consider this case as
FALSE terribly more seriously. Additionally, intent to mislead would be more
difficult to determine in a competitive situation. (I doubt it would change
my mind, but it would become a more heated argument.) Thus, it is fortunate
this case is brought at all before the gamestate reaches that contentious
point.
Finally, with regard to game custom, we do use context regularly to
resolve matters.
Per best interest of the game, well, this can only be supported by opinion.
What is the best interest of the game? I think we can agree is "to
continue",
which the ruling on this matter will not affect.
While investigating this case, it would be pertinent to put forth some
guidelines/opinions on ambiguity:
(These opinions are non-binding but may otherwise be used in future cases)
- Ambiguity should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
This is one of the things judgement is for.
- Ambiguity should have at least 2 definitive, common-sense
interpretations, where if an interpretation is unreasonable, then it is
not common-sense.
- Ambiguity should ideally be interpreted near the time of the event, by the
players extant at the event.
- Holistically, Agora is not a syntax parser: We persons can evaluate things
holistically and with proper context in the stead of Agora, and we regularly
do so.
HERETOFORE:
Enacting proposals as written should be something all players confirm is
done correctly, not just one.
I find that Proposal 8639 did set the power of Rule 879 "Quorum" to 3.
I find this CFJ to be TRUE.
==========================================================================
