status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4044
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 4044 ===============================
On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game.
==========================================================================
Caller: Janet
Judge: 4st
Judgement: TRUE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Janet: 23 Jun 2023 16:28:37
Assigned to 4st: 23 Jun 2023 17:50:24
Judged TRUE by 4st: 23 Jun 2023 21:45:08
Motion to reconsider self-filed: 24 Jun 2023 00:16:28
Judged TRUE by 4st: 24 Jun 2023 00:16:28
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the
continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect,
nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a
specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not
have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of
"having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must
therefore always use the current definition in force.
Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous
action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was
not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using
either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519,
yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated
action of any form.
R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice
Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under
either the current or former version of the rule.
Caller's Evidence:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 8988
Title: Rice rewrite
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Janet
Co-authors: snail
Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole:
{
The Ricemastor is an office.
Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly
restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is
owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed.
An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week,
specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set).
When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set
gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice
down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list
of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy
it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan.
An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An
active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a
contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir
signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each
rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it.
A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs,
the following happen in order:
* The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the
earliest created), if any, is harvested.
* All rice plans are destroyed.
Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2
rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice
and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner
three times, this rule immediately repeals itself.
}
[
Changes:
- Generally cleaned up wording
- Handle rice at Lost and Found
- Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case
where a person is in both the up and down sets)
- Use "CAN" for enabling
- Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than
"consent"
- Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures
- Removed Fancy Caps
]
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
The Rice Game
The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
has created by announcement.
A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
- If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
Rice Plan is Harvested.
- If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures,
the one that was created earliest is Harvested.
- In all other cases, nothing happens.
And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having
no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these
lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list.
When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice
Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each
player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then
e lose 1 Rice.
If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2
Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins
the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in
this manner three times, this rule repeals itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2682/1 (Power=1)
The Rice Game
The Ricemastor is an office.
Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership
wholly restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in
abeyance or is owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is
destroyed.
An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per
week, specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice
down set). When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in
the rice up set gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each
player in the rice down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's
weekly report includes a list of rice plans. The creator of a rice
plan CAN by announcement destroy it, thereby causing it to cease
to be a rice plan.
An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan.
An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it
or if a contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states
that eir signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report
includes, for each rice plan, a list of players with signatures on
it.
A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest
occurs, the following happen in order:
* The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor
of the earliest created), if any, is harvested.
* All rice plans are destroyed.
Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at
least 2 rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game,
then all rice and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been
won in this manner three times, this rule immediately repeals
itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[R2682/1 did not appear in any published ruleset. The purported R2682/2
did (under the incorrect belief that P8989 took effect), which differs
from R2682/1 only in saying "at least 5 rice" in the final paragraph.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
"Sign" is not an arbitrary word, but a word with a common definition
in the context of documents (or document-like things such as Rice
Plans). A perfectly common and natural definition of "signing" a
thing is to add one's signature to the thing. In adjudicating Rule
2682/0 in CFJ 4032, before "sign" was explicitly in that rule, Judge
ais523 literally uses the term as a direct and specific synonym for
adding a signature to a plan under the old rule:
> "a Rice Plan has X's signature" is a synonym for "X is consenting to
> {the Rice Plan / the Rice Plan being signed}"
Signatures were added to the plans in question under R2682/0 and not
removed, so the plans were "signed" by common and obvious definition
at the time of the change from R2682/0 to R2682/1. So when this text
came into effect:
> An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it
The fact that those plans had been signed remained true under the new
rule as well as the old (there was never a moment when it wasn't true,
during that transition).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge 4st's Arguments (initial, prior to reconsideration):
I find that this all hinges upon the final paragraph of the caller's
argument.
Rice plans are an entity, and "has an active player's Signature"
or "An active player's signature is on" is an attribute of that entity,
and thus, I find that R1586 is NOT irrelevant.
Specifically, in R1586:
"If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
with different attributes, then the second entity and its
attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
the new definitions.
"
The attributes of signatures of Rice Plans have not been changed
significantly enough to claim that previous signatures do not exist,
because it is very clearly possible for them to exist.
To further address the caller's arguments, however:
In the first paragraph: Agreed, the new by announcement action of signing
could not have been performed before adoption.
And it can also be agreed that "having signed" was always in force before
adoption, as per the old ruling.
Thus, rice plans had an attribute before and after the proposal was
adopted, providing continuity, which is governed by R1586.
In the second paragraph: I do not need to rule on the continuity of the
action itself, so I will not. It sounds complicated and irrelevant.
I would like to rule as they are continuous if it makes anyone feel better,
but I will not do so officially.
I find the arguments by G to also be compelling, but mainly, R1586 has
provided a solid resolution to his conundrum.
Thus, I judge this to be TRUE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge 4st's Arguments (following reconsideration):
I motion to reconsider 4044, but I still find it to be TRUE, because
continuity is implied, regardless of exactly "how" it works.
==========================================================================
