Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

 To Yachay's points: I've addressed the unreasonable claim that we could
reinterpret any rule change ambiguously: we could consider most or all rule
changes to be ambiguous, for example in reference to some other "rule 879"
or something: and we don't. Why don't we? "reasonability"
To Janet's points: I've removed the note that the ruleset itself changed
(just the reports), and removed the note about any sort of No Faking.
(instead just clarifying that there was no intent to mislead, and that).
To nix's/G's points: Some burden of proof is required: what constitutes
proof? This is based on "reasonability". Janet has provided proof, but I
find it to be unreasonable as a judge, which I think is as good as we can
get.
To ais523's discussion: Thanks for more case history, (I tend not to read
old cases).

So here's another draft:
(Draft ruling)
Summary of Evidence:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules

  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.

  Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
  using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
  can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
  rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
  is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
  common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
  higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
  clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
  clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
  changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
  causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
  with its text.

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
  (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
  matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
  controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
  causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
  e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.

Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

  When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
  generally:
 [...]
  6. change the power of a rule.

  A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
  Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.

  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
  change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
  in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
  for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.

  A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
  full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
  specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
  least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
  take effect.

  This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
  created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
  a rule or cease to be a rule.

The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe
Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"?

We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." to
mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to change
the power of that rule.

We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
to mean to change some other Rule 879, other than the one in the Agoran
ruleset, and change its power. For example, this is also Rule 879:
https://www.medicaid.gov/tmsis/dataguide/validation-rules/rule-879/
Or, we could posit that there was a typo, in order to refer to Quorum:
it was meant to be rule 875:
https://regulations.justia.com/states/iowa/agency-875/athletics-commissioner/chapter-170/rule-875-170-6/
or rule 877:
https://oregon.public.law/rules/oar_877-010-0005
Or, it could mean some other unpublished Rule 879.

We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive
definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of the
rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule.

This second reading is unreasonable, and is definitively bad faith:
What other rule would we be referring to? Despite not specifying that it
is referring to the rule in the Agoran ruleset, we can see this
interpretation is CLEARLY unreasonable, as there is no other context 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

* was never added in the first place because it would ossify the game.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:08 AM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any*
> ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> void and without effect." was never actually added in the first
> place, because that's another interpretation that keeps the game
> playable, just deferring to a different standard of what "ambiguity"
> should be.
>
> It's kind of hilarious how ambiguity itself, for Agora, is ambiguous.
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:00 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>> > Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity
>> in
>> > the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
>> > without effect."
>> >
>> > Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
>> > needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and
>> I'm
>> > not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but
>> I
>> > do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
>> > personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's
>> all
>> > compromise anyways.
>>
>> We have a rule about how to interpret the rules (rule 217); we need to
>> rely on that when determining what the "any ambiguity in the
>> specification of a rule change…" rule means. I agree that "any" has a
>> clear meaning, but "ambiguity" doesn't – and the rule 217 tests make it
>> clear that it should be interpreted in a way that makes the game
>> playable.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Yep, pretty much; although that could also mean that the clause "*Any*
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was never actually added in the first
place, because that's another interpretation that keeps the game
playable, just deferring to a different standard of what "ambiguity"
should be.

It's kind of hilarious how ambiguity itself, for Agora, is ambiguous.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 1:00 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity
> in
> > the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
> > without effect."
> >
> > Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
> > needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and
> I'm
> > not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but I
> > do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
> > personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's
> all
> > compromise anyways.
>
> We have a rule about how to interpret the rules (rule 217); we need to
> rely on that when determining what the "any ambiguity in the
> specification of a rule change…" rule means. I agree that "any" has a
> clear meaning, but "ambiguity" doesn't – and the rule 217 tests make it
> clear that it should be interpreted in a way that makes the game
> playable.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 2023-05-11 at 00:55 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity in
> the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
> without effect."
> 
> Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
> needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and I'm
> not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but I
> do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
> personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's all
> compromise anyways.

We have a rule about how to interpret the rules (rule 217); we need to
rely on that when determining what the "any ambiguity in the
specification of a rule change…" rule means. I agree that "any" has a
clear meaning, but "ambiguity" doesn't – and the rule 217 tests make it
clear that it should be interpreted in a way that makes the game
playable.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Sorry, I meant practical for the purposes of applying  "*Any* ambiguity in
the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and
without effect."

Of course, this compromise-based definition of how ambiguous something
needs to be in order to be ambiguous for Agora can change and vary and I'm
not entirely sure what that definition is supposed to be right now, but I
do feel like it's very likely to fall into one that I don't agree with
personally but that I have no problem playing along with, because it's all
compromise anyways.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:49 AM Yachay Wayllukuq 
wrote:

> And that's the compromise that Agora assumes for what ambiguity is, and
> that's fine with me. It's just that, if we take "ambiguity" by a
> sufficiently strict definition, everything technically ends up having some
> iota of ambiguity; which isn't very practical for a game.
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:38 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 22:04 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>> > I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the
>> mechanism
>> > is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
>> > define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more
>> possible
>> > senses or ways".
>>
>> The unambiguity requirement is very narrow – it doesn't stop rule
>> changes on ambiguities in general, the ambiguity has to specifically be
>> an ambiguity in the way that the rule change is specified. That only
>> gives a very narrow area in which an ambiguity might occur, and most
>> rule changes are specified unambiguously by giving the old and new
>> text.
>>
>> The only situation I can remember where it was contentious as to
>> whether a rule change was specified ambiguously was proposal 8644 (see
>>  for a
>> description of what happened). In that case, a judge found that the
>> specification was not in fact ambiguous. The vast majority of rule
>> changes are specified considerably less ambiguously than that.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

And that's the compromise that Agora assumes for what ambiguity is, and
that's fine with me. It's just that, if we take "ambiguity" by a
sufficiently strict definition, everything technically ends up having some
iota of ambiguity; which isn't very practical for a game.

On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:38 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 22:04 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the
> mechanism
> > is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
> > define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more
> possible
> > senses or ways".
>
> The unambiguity requirement is very narrow – it doesn't stop rule
> changes on ambiguities in general, the ambiguity has to specifically be
> an ambiguity in the way that the rule change is specified. That only
> gives a very narrow area in which an ambiguity might occur, and most
> rule changes are specified unambiguously by giving the old and new
> text.
>
> The only situation I can remember where it was contentious as to
> whether a rule change was specified ambiguously was proposal 8644 (see
>  for a
> description of what happened). In that case, a judge found that the
> specification was not in fact ambiguous. The vast majority of rule
> changes are specified considerably less ambiguously than that.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

My argument can be applied to specific parts of the gamestate too. I'll
formulate it in a different way.

Be a "Janet Surprise" a moment like recently where we were blindsided by an
insightful player who found that we were actually wrong about what we
thought a specific part of the gamestate to be, we don't know if other
Janet Surprises exist.

I believe that we're pretty aware of our ignorance in regards to this.
Since we're ignorant to knowing what yet-unknown, surprising things might
entirely change our perception about some specific aspect of the game, that
is, what other "Janet Surprises" might surprise us in the future, the
possibility that that specific aspect of the game *could* be interpreted in
a different way always exists. We're just not omniscient. Since there
always is the possibility that that specific aspect of the game could be
interpreted in a different way,  the definition of what something needs to
be in order to be qualified as "ambiguous" is always fulfilled. So, that
(or any) specific aspect of the game is always ambiguous.

Of course, this isn't what I'd expect Agora to abide by. I'd much rather if
Agora didn't.


On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:04 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 16:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
> > reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you
> have
> > currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception
> as
> > the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the
> > information obtained itself.
> >
> > I also think that certainty is required for unambiguity. If you admit
> that
> > you're not certain, you're admitting that the game is *capable* of being
> > understood in some other way; which falls right into the requirement for
> > ambiguity.
> >
> > Of course, you could feel like you're absolutely certain, but be wrong
> > anyways.
>
>
> The R105 standard is about ambiguity in the specification of rule
> changes, not ambiguity in the gamestate as a whole.
>
> And, even if we are wrong about the rules or the gamestate, a rule
> change can be unambiguous. For instance, consider the recalculation of
> R2139 after P8423 [13]. P8423 removed a different paragraph than
> everyone thought it did, but the change itself is not at all ambiguous.
> It did what it said on the tin.
>
> [13]:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-June/013796.html
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Wed, 2023-05-10 at 22:04 +0200, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
> is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
> define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
> senses or ways".

The unambiguity requirement is very narrow – it doesn't stop rule
changes on ambiguities in general, the ambiguity has to specifically be
an ambiguity in the way that the rule change is specified. That only
gives a very narrow area in which an ambiguity might occur, and most
rule changes are specified unambiguously by giving the old and new
text.

The only situation I can remember where it was contentious as to
whether a rule change was specified ambiguously was proposal 8644 (see
 for a
description of what happened). In that case, a judge found that the
specification was not in fact ambiguous. The vast majority of rule
changes are specified considerably less ambiguously than that.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/10/23 16:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
> reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you have
> currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception as
> the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the
> information obtained itself.
>
> I also think that certainty is required for unambiguity. If you admit that
> you're not certain, you're admitting that the game is *capable* of being
> understood in some other way; which falls right into the requirement for
> ambiguity.
>
> Of course, you could feel like you're absolutely certain, but be wrong
> anyways.


The R105 standard is about ambiguity in the specification of rule
changes, not ambiguity in the gamestate as a whole.

And, even if we are wrong about the rules or the gamestate, a rule
change can be unambiguous. For instance, consider the recalculation of
R2139 after P8423 [13]. P8423 removed a different paragraph than
everyone thought it did, but the change itself is not at all ambiguous.
It did what it said on the tin.

[13]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-June/013796.html

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave
reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you have
currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception as
the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the
information obtained itself.

I also think that certainty is required for unambiguity. If you admit that
you're not certain, you're admitting that the game is *capable* of being
understood in some other way; which falls right into the requirement for
ambiguity.

Of course, you could feel like you're absolutely certain, but be wrong
anyways.

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 15:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the
>> mechanism
>> is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
>> define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
>> senses or ways".
>>
>
> This is already what ambiguous means. I don't understand what you seem to
> think it means if not "two or more possible interpretations."
>
>
>> I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although
>> I
>> could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need*one*  to qualify):
>> We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as
>> Janet's
>> announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know
>> about.
>>
>> Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right
>> about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they
>> are;
>> because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that
>> the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is
>> "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
>> because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of.
>>
>> The entire game*might*  be some other way, but we just don't know for sure
>> if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree.
>>
> Just because I could have a flawed perception doesn't mean my perception
> *is* flawed. Even if it did, that's a question of doubt and certainty, not
> of ambiguity. Me being subjectively uncertain something is true doesn't
> mean there's objectively another interpretation.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

One other thing that's totally unspoken in the rules but exists in the
common-law of CFJs is that it's acceptable to find "to the
preponderance of evidence" for factual questions.  This used to be
codified - but we repealed that codification for whatever reason.  But
it was still established enough in the CFJs that when repealed that
people kept using that standard.  Here's the last version of the
codification (repealed in 2007, though it may have moved elsewhere and
been repealed later):

Rule 1575/6 (Power=1)
Standards of Proof

  Unless otherwise specified, all Judgements shall be consistent
  with the preponderance of the evidence.

  A defendant may not be assessed punitive damages for Rules
  Violations any worse than a formal apology, unless a Judge finds
  that evidence for the violation is beyond a reasonable doubt.

  The published Report of an Officer constitutes prima facie
  evidence of the truth of those matters reported therein which
  that Officer is required by law to report.  This presumption may
  be set aside only by clear and convincing evidence to the
  contrary.


On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:05 PM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
> is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
> define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
> senses or ways".
>
> I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although I
> could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need *one* to qualify):
> We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as Janet's
> announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know
> about.
>
> Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right
> about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they are;
> because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that
> the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is
> "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
> because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of.
>
> The entire game *might* be some other way, but we just don't know for sure
> if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree.
>
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:28 PM nix via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > "Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my
> > point.
> > > It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But,
> > yes,
> > > I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity
> > needs
> > > to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what*is*  reasonable
> > > ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it
> > > (Agora itself) feels like it should be.
> > I'm still going to (politely) push back on this. It seems like your base
> > assumption is everything is ambiguous, and we would need to prove it's
> > not. I'm saying the opposite. if nobody provides an alternative reading,
> > there's no reason to believe the rule change is ambiguous. I am applying
> > the standard strictly, and expecting a burden of proof that it has been
> > violated instead of just assuming it has been.
> >
> > --
> > nix
> > Prime Minister, Herald
> >
> >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/10/23 15:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:

I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
senses or ways".


This is already what ambiguous means. I don't understand what you seem 
to think it means if not "two or more possible interpretations."




I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although I
could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need*one*  to qualify):
We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as Janet's
announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know
about.

Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right
about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they are;
because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that
the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is
"capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of.

The entire game*might*  be some other way, but we just don't know for sure
if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree.
Just because I could have a flawed perception doesn't mean my perception 
*is* flawed. Even if it did, that's a question of doubt and certainty, 
not of ambiguity. Me being subjectively uncertain something is true 
doesn't mean there's objectively another interpretation.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the mechanism
is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to
define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible
senses or ways".

I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although I
could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need *one* to qualify):
We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as Janet's
announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know
about.

Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right
about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they are;
because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that
the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is
"capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways"
because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of.

The entire game *might* be some other way, but we just don't know for sure
if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:28 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > "Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my
> point.
> > It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But,
> yes,
> > I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity
> needs
> > to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what*is*  reasonable
> > ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it
> > (Agora itself) feels like it should be.
> I'm still going to (politely) push back on this. It seems like your base
> assumption is everything is ambiguous, and we would need to prove it's
> not. I'm saying the opposite. if nobody provides an alternative reading,
> there's no reason to believe the rule change is ambiguous. I am applying
> the standard strictly, and expecting a burden of proof that it has been
> violated instead of just assuming it has been.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/10/23 14:26, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:

"Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my point.
It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, yes,
I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity needs
to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what*is*  reasonable
ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it
(Agora itself) feels like it should be.
I'm still going to (politely) push back on this. It seems like your base 
assumption is everything is ambiguous, and we would need to prove it's 
not. I'm saying the opposite. if nobody provides an alternative reading, 
there's no reason to believe the rule change is ambiguous. I am applying 
the standard strictly, and expecting a burden of proof that it has been 
violated instead of just assuming it has been.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

Sorry, that was probably a bad example. G. has much more eloquently
explained what I mean.

"Any at all full stop" ambiguity is a whole lot of ambiguity, is my point.
It's incredibly easy for anything to gain any iota of ambiguity. But, yes,
I believe that we don't interpret it that way, rather, the ambiguity needs
to be "reasonable", but then the discussion becomes what *is* reasonable
ambiguity? It's subjective and it depends on what the group deciding it
(Agora itself) feels like it should be.

And I'm fine with that.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:15 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 14:13, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity
> in
> > that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.
> >
> > It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen.*Any*.
> That's not ambiguity in the rule change tho, it's ambiguity in a
> discussion adjacent to it.
>
> Even if it's "easy" for ambiguity to happen, I don't think that means it
> happens every single time. I think the ambiguity standard demands at
> least two plausible interpretations to be presented.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 11:43 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
> believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
> ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> void and without effect." was added to the game.
>
> I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in
> preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able
> to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at
> the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it.

One issue is that we've got a tug-of-war between approaching the rules
as a practical legal document that allows for some measure of
common-sense intent (which might interpret "any ambiguity" as "any
reasonable ambiguity" or "any practical/effective ambiguity") and the
computer programming/mathematical approach where "any" might mean "any
at all full stop".  The hybrid mix leads to some very weird outcomes,
where there's a surface level of hyper-precision - mainly because the
player base draws far more from the mathematical side than the legal
side in its expertise - but digging deeper it all rests on some hazy
common-law common-sense applications to break out of logical loops
(hazy is not meant as 'bad' but more as 'flexible case-by-case
including intent, good-of-the-game, and so forth').  I think the
hybrid approach certainly contributes to the philosophical vigor of
the game, but the translation of that hybrid approach to
rules-lanugage is quite messy and it breaks down in very particular
ways, as you say.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/10/23 14:13, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:

I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity in
that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.

It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen.*Any*.
That's not ambiguity in the rule change tho, it's ambiguity in a 
discussion adjacent to it.


Even if it's "easy" for ambiguity to happen, I don't think that means it 
happens every single time. I think the ambiguity standard demands at 
least two plausible interpretations to be presented.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

I didn't mean that, but as you can see now, we've just created ambiguity in
that I might mean what you believe I do, or not.

It's too easy for "any" sort of ambiguity to happen. *Any*.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 9:08 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 13:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:
> > If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
> > believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
> > ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
> > void and without effect." was added to the game.
> >
> > I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in
> > preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able
> > to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at
> > the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it.
> I've seen a few variations of this. To me the word ambiguity means
> there's more than one plausible meaning. You're arguing that there's
> more than one plausible meaning for each and every rule change that has
> ever happened?
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Herald
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/10/23 13:42, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote:

If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was added to the game.

I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in
preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able
to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at
the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it.
I've seen a few variations of this. To me the word ambiguity means 
there's more than one plausible meaning. You're arguing that there's 
more than one plausible meaning for each and every rule change that has 
ever happened?


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion]

If I were to interpret the ruleset as strictly as I would like to, I
believe that no rule change whatsoever has happened since the clause "Any
ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be
void and without effect." was added to the game.

I feel like the game culture specific to Agora is playing a large role in
preventing that clause from pseudo-ossifying the game from not being able
to make changes in a practical way unless we write hyper-eloquent yet at
the same time, hyper-pedantic Proposals. If not straight up ossifying it.

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 7:31 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/10/23 13:19, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Thank you for your copyediting, I know it's not an opinion you want
> > officialized.
> >
> > Hopefully the following draft is more amenable, as I have fully removed
> all
> > three offending sections.
> >
> >
> > (Draft ruling)
> > Summary of Evidence:
> >
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
> > Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
> > Interpreting the Rules
> >
> >   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.
> >
> >   Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
> >   using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
> >   can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
> >   rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
> >   is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
> >   common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
> >   higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
> >   clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
> >   clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
> >   changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
> >   causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
> >   with its text.
> >
> >   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
> >   (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
> >   matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
> >   controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
> >   causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
> >   e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
> >
> > Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
> > Rule Changes
> >
> >   When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
> >   generally:
> >  [...]
> >   6. change the power of a rule.
> >
> >   A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
> >   Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
> >
> >   Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> >   change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
> >   in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
> >   for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
> >
> >   A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
> >   full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
> >   specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
> >   least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
> >   take effect.
> >
> >   This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
> >   created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
> >   a rule or cease to be a rule.
> >
> > The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe
> > Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"?
> >
> > We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
> to
> > mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to
> change
> > the power of that rule.
> >
> > We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to
> 3."
> > to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive
> > definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of
> the
> > rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule.
> >
> > This second reading is unreasonable, and borders on bad-faith (despite
> the
> > good intentions of bringing this matter up): the player who wrote the
> > proposal had clear intentions of changing the rule based on further
> context
> > of the proposal, and provided further commentary that the power should be
> > at that level. Furthermore, this reading would also posit that the author
> > of the proposal violated No Faking: The commentary does not align with
> > "doing nothing", and

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/10/23 13:19, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> Thank you for your copyediting, I know it's not an opinion you want
> officialized.
>
> Hopefully the following draft is more amenable, as I have fully removed all
> three offending sections.
>
>
> (Draft ruling)
> Summary of Evidence:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
> Rule 217/12 (Power=3)
> Interpreting the Rules
>
>   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.
>
>   Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied
>   using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that
>   can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about
>   rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it
>   is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule
>   common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in
>   higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable
>   clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a
>   clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without
>   changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without
>   causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent
>   with its text.
>
>   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would
>   (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve
>   matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the
>   controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from
>   causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that
>   e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect.
>
> Rule 105/23 (Power=3)
> Rule Changes
>
>   When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
>   generally:
>  [...]
>   6. change the power of a rule.
>
>   A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
>   Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
>
>   Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
>   change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
>   in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
>   for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does.
>
>   A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
>   full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
>   specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
>   least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
>   take effect.
>
>   This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
>   created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
>   a rule or cease to be a rule.
>
> The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe
> Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"?
>
> We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." to
> mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to change
> the power of that rule.
>
> We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3."
> to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive
> definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of the
> rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule.
>
> This second reading is unreasonable, and borders on bad-faith (despite the
> good intentions of bringing this matter up): the player who wrote the
> proposal had clear intentions of changing the rule based on further context
> of the proposal, and provided further commentary that the power should be
> at that level. Furthermore, this reading would also posit that the author
> of the proposal violated No Faking: The commentary does not align with
> "doing nothing", and would thus be falsey, and "doing nothing" is misleading
> because it has purported to do something.


This isn't true. Violations of No Faking require (and required at the
time) the statement to be knowingly false, not just false, and be made
with intent to mislead. Clearly that wasn't the case here.


>
> Per rule 217, "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."
>
> Specifically, the text is silent on the definition of ambiguity.
>
> To reach a judgement on this matter:
> Per past judgements: CFJ 1460 has precedence that for something to be clear,
> players must understand it. (this is not a strong foundation)
> (Players seemed to have understood the intent of Proposal 8639, and
> considered it

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 1:20 PM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 5/8/23 16:08, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
> > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> The below CFJ is 4023.  I assign it to 4st.
> >>
> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
> >>
> >> ===  CFJ 4023
> ===
> >>
> >>   Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.
> >>
> >>
> ==
> >>
> >> Caller:Aspen
> >> Barred:Janet
> >>
> >> Judge: 4st
> >>
> >>
> ==
> >>
> >> History:
> >>
> >> Called by Aspen:  02 May 2023 16:16:29
> >> Assigned to 4st:  [now]
> >>
> >>
> ==
> >>
> >> Caller's Arguments:
> >>
> >> Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'):
> >>
> >>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote:
> >>> On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>  On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote:
> 
> > [Proposal 8639
> > failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power
> change.
>  If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so
> >> as to
>  miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear,
> >> even
>  by r105 standards?
>  I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change
> a
>  rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
> >>>
> >>> Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said.
> >>>
> >>> I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
> >>> title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to
> >>> that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule
> >>> rather than that my reading is wrong).
> >>>
> >>> My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean
> only
> >>> and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is
> >>> inherently ambiguous.
> >>
> --
> >>
> >> Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
> >>
> >> Gratuitous FOR:
> >>
> >> "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't
> >> understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without
> >> clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it.
> >>
> >> Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the
> >> text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and
> >> AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the
> power.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
> >>
> >> I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
> >> title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it
> >> does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the
> >> fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change
> >> but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should
> >> be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would
> >> be surplusage.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
> >>
> >> I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to
> >> compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear
> >> e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to
> >> argue the exact opposite of what the intent was.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
> >>
> >> I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes
> >> other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it
> surplus.
> >>
> >>
> >> Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
> >>
> >> Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to
> >> a problematic cycle.  Consider the following:
> >>
> >> 1.  A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em.
> >> Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text.
> >>
> >> 2.  Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the
> >> clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along,
> >> but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry
> >> right?
> >>
> >> 3.  Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as
> >> proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be
> >> read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also
> >> perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original
> >> language must now be unclear

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/8/23 16:08, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> The below CFJ is 4023.  I assign it to 4st.
>>
>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
>>
>> ===  CFJ 4023  ===
>>
>>   Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Caller:Aspen
>> Barred:Janet
>>
>> Judge: 4st
>>
>> ==
>>
>> History:
>>
>> Called by Aspen:  02 May 2023 16:16:29
>> Assigned to 4st:  [now]
>>
>> ==
>>
>> Caller's Arguments:
>>
>> Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'):
>>
>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
>>
>> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote:
>>> On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote:

> [Proposal 8639
> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change.
 If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so
>> as to
 miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear,
>> even
 by r105 standards?
 I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a
 rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
>>>
>>> Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said.
>>>
>>> I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
>>> title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to
>>> that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule
>>> rather than that my reading is wrong).
>>>
>>> My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only
>>> and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is
>>> inherently ambiguous.
>> --
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
>>
>> Gratuitous FOR:
>>
>> "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't
>> understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without
>> clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it.
>>
>> Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the
>> text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and
>> AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power.
>>
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
>>
>> I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
>> title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it
>> does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the
>> fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change
>> but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should
>> be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would
>> be surplusage.
>>
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
>>
>> I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to
>> compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear
>> e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to
>> argue the exact opposite of what the intent was.
>>
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
>>
>> I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes
>> other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus.
>>
>>
>> Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
>>
>> Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to
>> a problematic cycle.  Consider the following:
>>
>> 1.  A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em.
>> Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text.
>>
>> 2.  Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the
>> clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along,
>> but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry
>> right?
>>
>> 3.  Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as
>> proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be
>> read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also
>> perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original
>> language must now be unclear.  This leads to a round of adding
>> clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's
>> always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and
>> might have been perfectly clear to most people.
>>
>> This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to
>> weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound re

DIS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 4023 Assigned to 4st

[Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion]

On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> The below CFJ is 4023.  I assign it to 4st.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023
>
> ===  CFJ 4023  ===
>
>   Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Aspen
> Barred:Janet
>
> Judge: 4st
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Aspen:  02 May 2023 16:16:29
> Assigned to 4st:  [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'):
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote:
> > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote:
> > >
> > >> [Proposal 8639
> > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change.
> > >
> > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so
> as to
> > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear,
> even
> > > by r105 standards?
> > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a
> > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
> >
> >
> > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said.
> >
> > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
> > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to
> > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule
> > rather than that my reading is wrong).
> >
> > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only
> > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is
> > inherently ambiguous.
>
> --
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
>
> Gratuitous FOR:
>
> "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't
> understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without
> clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it.
>
> Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the
> text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and
> AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power.
>
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
>
> I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's
> title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it
> does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the
> fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change
> but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should
> be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would
> be surplusage.
>
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by nix:
>
> I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to
> compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear
> e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to
> argue the exact opposite of what the intent was.
>
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by Janet:
>
> I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes
> other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus.
>
>
> Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
>
> Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to
> a problematic cycle.  Consider the following:
>
> 1.  A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em.
> Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text.
>
> 2.  Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the
> clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along,
> but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry
> right?
>
> 3.  Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as
> proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be
> read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also
> perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original
> language must now be unclear.  This leads to a round of adding
> clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's
> always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and
> might have been perfectly clear to most people.
>
> This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to
> weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound reasoning,
> nor does it make for good rules-writing.  Whatever else the merits of
> this particular case, that logic should not be a reason fo