status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3874
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3874 ===============================
If G. demonstrated a Rulebending Form with text {This statute
takes precedence over all rules of power equal to this statute.
This statute, not any rule, determines the relative precedence of
rules and non-rule statutes in cases where they contradict. Rules
to the contrary notwithstanding, ais523 hereby becomes a
Rulebending Magister.}, this would be effective in making ais523 a
Rulebending Magister.
==========================================================================
Caller: ais523
Judge: Gaelan
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by ais523: 10 Aug 2020 00:56:23
Assigned to Gaelan: 14 Aug 2020 18:34:34
Judged FALSE by Gaelan: 20 Aug 2020 03:12:48
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On Sun, 2020-08-09 at 20:21 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8478-8487
> =================================
>
> ID Title Result
> 8483 a minor adjustment ADOPTED
[snip]
> ID: 8483
> Title: a minor adjustment
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
> If G., acting as emself, has published a single body of text clearly
> labeled as "THE MYSTERY DOCUMENT" after the voting period on the
> referendum for this proposal has began, this proposal applies all
> effects specified in that body of text.
On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 11:11 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
> THE MYSTERY DOCUMENT:
> ---------------------
>
> The patent title Rulebender is hereby awarded to each player whose valid
> vote on the decision to adopt Proposal 8483 evaluated to FOR at the
> end of the decision's voting period.
>
>
> Create the following Rule, "Rulebending":
>
> G. CAN, by announcement, make a Rulebender (defined as being an
> active player holding the patent title of Rulebender) into a
> Rulebending Magister, or make any entity cease being a rulebending
> magister. Changes to an entity's rulebending magister status are
> secured.
>
> A rulebending magister CAN demonstrate a Rulebending Form by
> announcement, specifying a published document as being the
> form. When e does so, the form's power is set to the power of this
> rule, it takes effect as an ephemeral instrument, and then its power
> is set to 0. However, a rulebending form CANNOT apply any of the
> following changes:
>
> - rule changes;
> - the creation, destruction, or transfer of assets;
> - the flipping of switches;
> - the creation, modification, or termination of any pledge, promise,
> or contract;
> - the changing of an entity's rulebending magister status.
>
> G. CAN cause this rule to repeal itself by announcement.
>
>
> Hereby, there are no rulebending magisters.
>
> G. is hereby made a rulebending magister.
>
> ---------------------
> END OF THE MYSTERY DOCUMENT
Caller's Arguments:
We have plenty of rules for resolving conflicts between rules. We do
not, however, have much legislation for resolving conflicts between
rules and non-rule statutes, especially when they have equal power.
The rule created by proposal 8483 has power 1 (rule 105, paragraph
labeled 1). If G. performed the hypothetical demonstration in the CFJ,
this would create an ephemeral instrument, a statute, also with power
1. The two statutes outright contradict each other (the Rulebending
Form claims it can change rulebending magister status, the rule claims
that Rulebending Forms can't).
Note that rule 2140 states that ephemeral instruments are bound by
restrictions in rules of /lower/ power, unless some rule explicitly
allows them to override these restrictions, but does not say anything
about being bound by restrictions in rules of /equal/ power.
It's probably impossible to logically resolve a contradiction like
this. Rule 1030 has protections against allowing rules to change the
precedence mechanisms (so as to prevent the ruleset containing two
precedence mechanisms that contradict each other, long recognised to be
an unresolvable situation). With the passing of proposal 8483, we now
have a situation in which it would be possible to have two separate
contradiction-resolution mechanics in our statues as a whole, because
non-rule statues are a way of getting around all our existing
protections that try to prevent unresolvable contradictions betweeen
contradiction-resolution mechanisms.
This sort of thing has happened before (e.g. rule 2240 came about
because someone found a contradiction between a rule and itself, and
this was IIRC considered paradoxical if there were no contradiction-
resolution mechanics involved); in general, this sort of case tends to
be considered a paradox. CFJ 2560 is a good source for seeing why this
sort of contradiction tends to be ruled paradoxical ??? and I think this
paradox is somewhat stronger than that one! I therefore recommend
UNDECIDABLE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by Jason:
Arguments for FALSE:
Rule 2613 says:
> An ephemeral instrument is one that takes effect only briefly, to
> effect a number of changes on the game. When it takes effect, the
> changes specified in its text are applied, provided that the
> instrument is not prohibited from doing so.
The rulebending form is prohibited from making changes to rulebending
magister status, so it simply does not apply those changes. It doesn't
matter that the form itself says otherwise, it is still prohibited from
making those changes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gaelan's Arguments:
2633/0 reads, in part: {
When e does so, the form's power is set to the power of this
rule, it takes effect as an ephemeral instrument, and then its power
is set to 0. However, a rulebending form CANNOT apply any of the
following changes:
- rule changes;
- the creation, destruction, or transfer of assets;
- the flipping of switches;
- the creation, modification, or termination of any pledge, promise,
or contract;
- the changing of an entity's rulebending magister status.
}
The word "however" is commonly understood to limit the scope or effect of
a previous sentence. Therefore, I find that the last sentence is an
integral clause of what allows the Form to take effect. It doesn't take
effect at power 1; it takes effect at power-1-except-it-can't-do-certain-
things. This isn't an ordinary conflict between instruments, judged by
power; the inability to change rulebending magister status is a
fundamental property of the Form's taking effect, and nothing gives it
authority to override this restriction (2613/0 does state that "An
ephemeral instrument CAN, where explicitly permitted to do so by the law
governing it, override the effect of an enduring instrument within its
scope by modifying", but 2633 gives no such permission). Therefore, I find
FALSE.
==========================================================================
