The below CFJ is 4029. I assign it to Murphy. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029
=============================== CFJ 4029 =============================== There was an infraction noted in this message. ========================================================================== Caller: Yachay Judge: Murphy ========================================================================== History: Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04 Assigned to Murphy: [now] ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. Caller's Arguments: So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was held up by, but if we do, then: - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating specifically? What about other ancient things that may affect how other *current* things of the game work too? - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still exists or works as intended? - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gratuitous Arguments by G: >> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: >> >> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional sense. Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > Invisibilitating > > Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html ais523 wrote: > It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete > list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where > their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the > list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal > 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) > > Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's > no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that > Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, > but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best > interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or > undefined but don't provide a definition.) G. wrote: I grepped the full BUS and OFF mboxes, and searched the CFJ archive, and I believe that there were never any legal proceedings accusing anyone of Invisibilitating, either while it existed in the previous iteration or afterwards. The only references I found were the enactment, the repeal, and the appearances in the ruleset or the proposal. This vaguely matched my memory that it was rarely if ever used. In this special case, I disagree that we are limited to the R217 definitional sources - in particular, because there are *no* R217 definitional sources, and the "text of the rules" says Invisibilitating is a crime, so we need to interpret that text of the rules. To that end, I would say we have to use the "common sense or game custom" to find some kind of definition, outside the R217 sources. Of course, I fully realize that it might be neither common sense nor game custom to use the old sense of the term. ==========================================================================