status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4029 ===============================
There was an infraction noted in this message.
==========================================================================
Caller: Yachay
Judge: Murphy
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04
Assigned to Murphy: 21 May 2023 14:05:04
Judged FALSE by Murphy: 21 May 2023 21:19:30
==========================================================================
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pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1].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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals, Power=3) states that adopted proposals
"take effect", and:
Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one
after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is
instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own
effect. Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set
to 0.
Contrast the first sentence of Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules,
Power=3.2):
A rule is a type of instrument that is always taking effect and
has the capacity to govern the game generally.
So the argument for a roughly 20-year-old proposal continuing to inform
the definition of "Invisibilitating" is weak at best. But even if it was
accepted as the closest thing to a definition that is available, the
alleged actions of "jaywalking without a license, compounded by having
dangerous levels of swagger" would not fit it anyway.
I judge FALSE.
==========================================================================
