Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 1:14 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
>
> Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
> something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
>
> Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
> a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
> interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
> once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
> the newer interpretation established.
That would be a first AFAIK. In disambiguating a specific piece of
rules text, I don't think we've ever done "it meant X up to this
moment but means Y after this". The one exception being whether
something is common knowledge ("this CFJ has discussed the matter to
death so if it wasn't common knowledge before, it sure is now").
Instead we do "it meant X and we are now changing it to Y via changing
the rules text."
I'm not saying it can't be done. It can be a standard practice in
casual board gaming ("we played that way for 2 turns but then someone
googled the errata so let's switch now") but it would be a fairly big
cultural shift which I'm just guessing would be a real hard sell for
any potential Moot voters via a single CFJ?
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/22/23 15:14, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add > a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the > interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint > once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with > the newer interpretation established. It's difficult to see how the internal logic of the CFJ would be self-consistent here, and even tho I want a different result I don't really want to do encourage so strongly "results motivated" reasoning. I think what would be best would be awarding ais523 some sort of alternate reward by proposal. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
Actually, I was asked by ais523 to add to a CfJ a clarification on
something, a 'sub-Judgement' of a sort.
Would've it been possible for me to, for example, Judge TRUE, but also add
a sub-Judgement that from here on, we should play according to the
interpretation that would make it FALSE (that is, that you can only anoint
once)? Like that, we would avoid the blindside issue, but also end up with
the newer interpretation established.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:51 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> > don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> > keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly
> easy
> > to pull off.
> >
> > How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
>
> If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
> it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
> one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
> ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
> overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
> 2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
> clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
> compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > > solve
> > > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > > >
> > > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my
> reasons
> > > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could
> become
> > > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > > that
> > > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if
> it
> > > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for
> delivering
> > > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule
> 911
> > > > and Moots exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case
> is
> > > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> > >
> > > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Janet Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:44 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
> don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
> keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
> to pull off.
>
> How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
If a Moot ends up being really close/split, the best thing is to fix
it by voting on legislation (a proposal) that clarifies it absolutely
one way or the other. Including possibly by-proposal saying that
ais523 wins even if the "clarification" goes in the opposite way
overall. Of course, if the clarification has to be made in an power
2+ rule, you could get a situation whether neither side can pass a
clarification in their direction. So far, we've managed to eke out a
compromise in the rare rare times that has happened.
-G.
> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> > solve
> > > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > > applying my own personal opinion.
> > >
> > > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> > that
> > > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > > and Moots exist.
> >
> >
> > If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> > of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> > diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> > the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> > arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> > make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> > majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
> >
> > If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
> >
> > --
> > Janet Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/22/23 15:44, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we > don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can > keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy > to pull off. > > How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end? The Arbitor knows what e's doing and doesn't want endless moots either. For moots ending in REMIT, e can pick someone that will end the controversy. If there's still sustained disagreement, the CFJ process has failed to establish consensus and something else (a proposal) is needed. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
Yes, but wouldn't certain CfJs be likely to enter into Moot Tennis if we
don't take the opinion of the majority as a tiebreaker as Judges? We can
keep going back and forth with Moots, because 2+N Support seems fairly easy
to pull off.
How is the Moot Tennis supposed to end?
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:32 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to
> solve
> > a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> > (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> > applying my own personal opinion.
> >
> > But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> > for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> > customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in
> that
> > way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> > doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> > judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> > and Moots exist.
>
>
> If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
> of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
> diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
> the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
> arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
> make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
> majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
>
> If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/22/23 15:25, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
> a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
> (...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
> applying my own personal opinion.
>
> But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
> for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
> customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that
> way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
> doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
> judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
> and Moots exist.
If judges always or often judge based on what the majority wants, a lot
of the point of a judiciary separate from the proposal system is
diminished. If a judge fully and truly believes the outcome of a case is
the opposite of what the majority wants (after hearing all the
arguments), then, in my view, they should judge that way. If they can
make a convincing argument then all is well, and if they can't then the
majority has motions and moots to deal with it.
If the majority is wrong, let them be wrong, but make them work for it.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
CfJ 3890 puts it into nicer words ("Where there is no obvious way to solve
a given problem, judges are free to apply their own life experience
(...)"), but seems to line up with what I had to end up with, simply
applying my own personal opinion.
But also, yes, I agree that it's not explicit; but I hope that my reasons
for approaching judging in that way seems sensible. Maybe it could become
customary if enough people tend to resort to justifying themselves in that
way. I think that the opinion of the consensus at the time, even if it
doesn't align with my personal opinion, is a better basis for delivering
judgement than just, well, my personal opinion. Especially when Rule 911
and Moots exist.
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 9:08 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/21/23 13:35, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> The current guidance on this is CFJ 3890
> (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3890).
>
> Also, judges generally don't explicitly appeal to what the majority
> wants for matters of law (though that would be reasonable for things
> like communication standards which are more squishy), and Rule 911 does
> not direct judges to. Rule 217 is the primary authority on ruleset
> interpretation.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On 5/21/23 15:12, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:35 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> This is my Judgement for CFJ 4030, which asks: >> >> Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times >> for a single instance of a ritual act. >> >> This is also my first Judgement. I hope I did alright. >> >> 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 thought I should add my voice to this. I actually do see a suggestion of > the "whole deck" interpretation in the text of the rules. The rules text in > question uses "CAN", which is defined as follows: "Attempts to perform the > described action are successful." Note that "attempts" is plural. This > suggests that by default, a CAN allows multiple instances of the same > action to succeed. This definition of CAN is very permissive-feeling, so I > think you judged correctly in not restricting the CAN to only allowing a > single action. > -- > snail Not that this is the actual basis for the judgement, but I don't think that's relevant. To me, this clearly hinges/hinged on "After" not "CAN". -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 12:35 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is my Judgement for CFJ 4030, which asks: > > Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a ritual number multiple times > for a single instance of a ritual act. > > This is also my first Judgement. I hope I did alright. > > 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 thought I should add my voice to this. I actually do see a suggestion of the "whole deck" interpretation in the text of the rules. The rules text in question uses "CAN", which is defined as follows: "Attempts to perform the described action are successful." Note that "attempts" is plural. This suggests that by default, a CAN allows multiple instances of the same action to succeed. This definition of CAN is very permissive-feeling, so I think you judged correctly in not restricting the CAN to only allowing a single action. -- snail
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) CFJ 4030 Judged TRUE by Yachay
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 10:35 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > I Judge TRUE, forced to play my last card and merely appeal to my personal > opinion. I think this is just fine, and a nice overall first judgement and discussion of the issues. When we were discussing this on Discord, it was a limited audience and I don't think anyone spoke up for the "it actually reads that way on a natural reading", it was mainly nix and I agreeing that boardgame rules generally read the *other* way. For these sorts of uncertain R217 readings that *could* be read both ways reasonably, and where the dominant reading isn't pegged to some very specific past judgement but a more hazy 'game custom', a completely fresh "it reads that way to me, in my opinion" is a perfectly sound and solid basis for deciding. And if the players are really split (which they probably aren't), it would head for Moot whichever way you went, and you definitely provided sufficient arguments opposite the Caller's arguments for a Moot to chew on. -G.
