DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

> 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.
>

I missed something crucial that is actually pretty interesting (this
is a historical note not a prelude to appeal). The "pronouncement" of
the proposal that defined invisibilitating in July 2003 actually had a
legal framework:  the Legislative Order.  The pronouncement created a
Legislative Order.  Of course, since our formal complex system of
Orders and counter-Orders doesn't exist, I'd assume the Order on
"Invisibilitating" now has a concrete point of destruction, when the
Orders system was repealed.  But in any case, for historical slice of
the rules (and/or future CFJ value) here was the governing rule at the
time:

Rule 1891/0 (Power=1)
Legislative Orders

  (a) A Proposal may contain one or more Orders.

  (b) The effect of adopting a Proposal which contains Orders is
  to execute those Orders.  Such Orders are known as
  Legislative Orders, are deemed to have been executed by that
  Proposal, and are deemed to have been executed as of the
  date of the proclamation of the Proposal's adoption.

  (c) Legislative Orders may not be stayed, vacated, or amended
  except:
(1) by a subsequent Legislative Order;
(2) by a Judicial Order issued only after a judicial finding
that the Proposal containing the Legislative Order was not
adopted, was barred from taking effect, or was invalid; or
(3) by the Clerk of the Courts, but only for the purpose of
staying such an Order during the pendency of a dispute
which might reasonably lead to a judicial finding of the
sort mentioned in subdivision (c)(2) of this Rule.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4029 Assigned to Murphy

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

Seriously considering to send to business that i jaywalk without a license
with dangerous levels of swagger anyways

søn. 21. mai 2023, 2:19 p.m. skrev Edward Murphy via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>:

> G. wrote:
>
> > 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: