status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4030 (This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4030 =============================== Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act. ========================================================================== Caller: nix Judge: Yachay ========================================================================== History: Called by nix: 17 May 2023 23:14:29 Assigned to Yachay: 21 May 2023 14:06:53 Judged TRUE by Yachay: 21 May 2023 17:35:04 Entered into Moot: 22 May 2023 19:28:28 Judged TRUE by Yachay affirmed by Moot: 31 May 2023 19:12:46 ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On 5/17/23 16:45, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > Previous versions of rule 2680 said "CAN once" (e.g. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-April/016950.html > - mail-archive.com isn't archiving old rulesets so I had to link the > private archive). > > However, proposal 8943 > (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg13159.html) > changed it to a version without the "once". We generally say "CAN once" > if an action is only intended to be possible once, and the "once", once > present, is now repealed. This means that it should be possible to > anoint multiple ritual numbers using the same ritual act. Caller's Arguments: To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in other games. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gratuitous Arguments by G.: In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the win). For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X happens, a player CAN Y" language. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Yachay's Arguments: Guidance in Rule 217 states: 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. However, the text of the rule isn't clear, such text being: When a ritual act is performed, any player CAN, within 7 days, by announcement anoint a ritual number, specifying the ritual act and the new ritual number. The text of the rule can be understood to mean either that you can anoint once, or that you can anoint multiple times. Arguments in favor of being able to anoint several times has been Agoran custom, custom which I am personally not very familiar with, but evidence from G. and a lack of counterarguments to this seems reasonable enough to permit it as evidence for this case: I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. However, there are also arguments in favor that you shouldn't be able to anoint several times, for example, from Caller nix, which seems to me to allude to what would be "in the best interests of the game": To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in other games. I am personally convinced that this is a reasonable interest that a number of people may have, as clearly shown by nix and G. Being myself familiar with board games and their customs being reasonably easy for people check for themselves, I permit this as evidence for the case as well for what would be "in the best interests of the game" and don't believe I require any further investigation into this. So, presented with these two conflicting views, unfortunately Rule 217 doesn't establish some kind of priority between the different alternatives to the text of the rule. There is no priority between "custom" and "the best interests of the game", leaving me at an apparent impasse with the evidence presented. I cannot simply DIMISS this case either, given this apparent tie, because I believe that there is enough that indicates that I nonetheless have to tiebreak and deliver a Judgement regardless as the Judge for this case. In this case, it would be easy to deliver Judgement to if there was an overwhelming majority that wanted this Judgement to be Judged in a certain way, because of the mechanic in Rule 911 of Moots and Motions to Reconsider, which seem to reasonably imply that it's ultimately in the choice of popular Agoran opinion which Judgements end up being delivered and which not. However, with just 3 participating voices from the rest of players, it's difficult for me to make a reasonable assumption - plus, I personally believe that ais523 is correct, as it seems to be a more mechanistic and austere reading of that rule without needing to be augmented by fairly specific linguistic presumptions, leaving it at a 2 v 2. I recognize that those are very reasonable presumptions to have, but I don't see them as being sufficiently linguistically dominant; nor do I see what seems to be a last-minute change in interpretation to be in the "best interests of the game" either, even if the new interpretation would be itself in the "best interests of the game". If it was sufficiently announced, sure. But I don't feel like it's fair to blindside a player like that. So, Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 217, (appeal to game custom / best interests of the game) Unable to reach a conclusion by study of Rule 911, (appeal to the opinion of the majority) And nonetheless believe that it is my duty deliver judgement regardless, I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my personal opinion. ==========================================================================