On 4/25/2020 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
=============================== CFJ 3828 ===============================
A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the
number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.
==========================================================================
I deliver the following judgement for CFJ 3828:
This court agrees that we must adhere to the text of the rule "A Coin
Award" for the time that it was a rule:
When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
rule repeals itself.
The court also agrees that, upon the enactment of that rule, a coin was
created in the possession of a player, as per the definition of 'earn' in
R2577/2:
For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in
that entity's possession.
And just for good measure, the rules grant themselves explicit general
authority to create coins, as per R2166/28:
An asset's backing document can generally
specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
transferred.
Therefore, in the words of "A Coin Award", a player did indeed earn a coin
"this way" and the rule repealed itself.
In a more practical jurisdiction than Agora, a judge might say "ah,
looking at R2576/0, each asset has exactly one owner. The rule that
created the coin listed a subset of possible owners, therefore we merely
decide on someone in that set. Or maybe defer to the Officer to make the
decision."
However, Agora also has Rule 2518/0:
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
This implies that, if insufficient information exists to determine the
owner of an existing coin, a judge's task is not to pick an arbitrary
method for determining the value, but simply to determine that the value
is indeterminate, and see if that leads to an appropriate result.
First, for posterity, it's worth noting that after this CFJ was called,
P8366 'Asset Determinacy' was adopted (17 Apr 2020), changing part of
R2576's text from:
If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
and Found Department.
to:
If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its ownership
would otherwise be indeterminate, it is owned by the Lost and
Found Department.
Therefore, upon that change taking effect, the coin in question was
transferred to the Lost and Found Department, where I believe it resides now.
However, at the time this CFJ was called, the coin belonged to an
indeterminate player, so that is the basis of this judgement. Taking the
wording of the CFJ statement:
A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the
number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.
We have determined that the rule was enacted, and the rule repealed
itself. However, it is indeterminate whether R. Lee's coin totals were
increased. Looking at the judgement options in R591/46:
* PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
arises from the case itself or in reference to it.
If the owner of the coin is indeterminate, then it is logically
irresovable whether R. Lee's coin totals were changed. It is not
IRRELEVANT (at the time it was called), as it directly affects the
Treasuror's records, nor does the undecidability arise from the case
itself or in reference to it. Further, the other possible option, DISMISS
(because insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
reasonable effort) explicitly excludes itself from consideration if
PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
Therefore, this court finds PARADOXICAL.
