status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3896
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
=============================== CFJ 3896 ===============================
If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
Nomic".
==========================================================================
Caller: Aris
Judge: G.
Judgement: FALSE
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Aris: 01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.: 03 Feb 2021 17:26:24
Judged FALSE by G.: 10 Feb 2021 14:14:49
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
[linked to CFJ 3897]
A proposal that would destroy Agora would be canceled by AiaN. After
all, proposals that would otherwise "cause Agora to cease to exist"
are explicitly listed among the categories of proposals that AiaN
blocks. The question, then, is whether the proposal would, but for
AiaN, successfully cause Agora to cease to exist. If causing Agora to
cease to exist would involve repealing more than one rule, the action
would fail per Rule 105, which requires that the order of rule changes
be unambiguous. If it could be done without changes to the rules, I
honestly have no clue whether another rule would block it from
happening.
CFJ 3580 is relevant, since it discusses the behavior of legal
fictions with respect to AiaN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge G.'s Arguments:
As per CFJ 3580, the first thing is to determine for a broad action text
like this: if the command "destory Agora" were executed, what would
actually be affected?
What exactly is Agora (that is, what is it that would actually be
destroyed?) That's found explicitly in R101:
> Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
> with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of
> these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be
> won, but the game never ends.
>
> Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.
Persons and Fora are external (so might be destoyed by "destroy the
universe" but not by a "destroy Agora"). So that leaves that Agora is a
game. What does it mean to "destroy" a game, in particular a game of
nomic? There are two reasonable definitions that I see for "destroy" in
the context of games:
1. Destroying all the rules - that would pretty much destroy Agora as
Agora (even if some kind of common law could be inferred after that, it's
pretty much no longer Agora if done that way). "Destroy the rules" is
reasonably synonymous for repealing them. R105 protects against
simultaneous mass repeals; the order that rules are repealed needs to be
specified. Therefore, R105 blocks any rules from being repealed under a
"destroy Agora" clause.
2. End the game - Games for the most part end. That would destroy all
gameplay beyond that. So to end Agora is to destroy it. But R101 states
"the game never ends". I find that this clause in R101 is protective and
generally (to the maximum extent of R101's power) prevents the game from
ending. This serves as an "except as prohibited by the rules" that
prevents proposal clauses from taking effect (however that's worded under
bodies of law). So destroy Agora -> end the game -> blocked from taking
effect by R101.
Therefore, a clause in an ephemeral instrument purporting to "destroy
Agora" is blocked from having any effect, by either or both of R105 and
R101, meaning R1698 is never triggered in Agora's defense. FALSE.
==========================================================================
