Index ← 2213a CFJ 2213 2214 → text
==============================  CFJ 2213  ==============================

    The Patent Title Scamster has been revoked from come.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2213a
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  woggle
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by omd:                          07 Oct 2008 23:16:44 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     09 Oct 2008 03:15:48 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  09 Oct 2008 11:43:57 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         09 Oct 2008 16:19:52 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     09 Oct 2008 16:25:12 GMT
Appealed by root:                       09 Oct 2008 18:32:15 GMT
Appeal 2213a:                           09 Oct 2008 18:32:15 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   24 Oct 2008 01:17:28 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     27 Oct 2008 07:11:40 GMT
woggle recused:                         29 Oct 2008 19:31:15 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         30 Oct 2008 08:01:11 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     07 Nov 2008 04:58:46 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

So far the only argument AGAINST is that Rule Changes might not be actions.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Ian Kelly  wrote:
>> "action" is not defined.  answers.com: "Something done or
>> accomplished; a deed."  Any process with any effect on the Rules, I'd
>> say, is an action.  Remember, the meaning of the "may" in Rule 2141 is
>> irrelevant because Rule 2192 uses the exact same word.
>
> I think our customary definition is more like this one: "an act that
> one consciously wills and that may be characterized by physical or
> mental activity"

With respect to "one consciously wills" and "that may be characterized
by physical or mental activity": this attempted rule change is no
different than any other Monster action.  Assuming that Monster
actions have not unilaterally failed, along with those of partnerships
and judicial panels, we can assume these requirements are satisfied.
But then we're reduced to "act", which is just where we started...

========================================================================

Judge ais523's Arguments:

Yes, this case seems to hinge around the meaning of "action"; the scam
worked if rule changes are actions. The word is not defined in the
ruleset, and therefore it's common-language meaning is used.

"define:action" on Google gives many results; the only three relevant
ones (i.e. the ones which are not clearly a different meaning of
"action") are shown here (most of the others are specialized meanings,
especially with respect to gambling or legal proceedings, and 'action'
is not a word that is normally used in the legal sense; there are a few
other generic definitions but for different meanings, some of which are
not even nouns):
      * something done (usually as opposed to something said); "there
        were stories of murders and other unnatural actions"
      * carry through: put in effect; "carry out a task"; "execute the
        decision of the people"; "He actioned the operation"
      * Something done so as to accomplish a purpose; A way of motion or
        functioning; A fast-paced activity; A mechanism; a moving part
        or assembly; : The set of moving mechanical parts in a keyboard
        instrument which transfer the motion of the key to the
        sound-making device; Sexual activity ...
        
Google lists the Wiktionary definition: I also checked dictionary.com,
which defined the relevant meaning of "action" as "something done or
performed; act; deed.".

root states "an act that one consciously wills and that may be
characterized by physical or mental activity" as the definition e
considers most suitable, but this is clearly a different meaning of
"action"; dictionary.com lists this definition but gives the following
examples for its use: "a crisis that demands action instead of debate;
hoping for constructive action by the landlord." This definition seems
to be more along the line of activism, "action" as contrasted to
"words". However, it is not inconsistent with the other definitions; it
is classifying an action as something that is done as opposed to
something that is merely talked about, which appears to be the essence
of an action. In the context of Agora, an action is therefore presumably
something that modifies the game-state, or which can be responded to, as
opposed to (for instance) a comment to a-d that merely discusses the
game and does not cause any changes.

With the meaning that I think is most likely correct (the first one
listed by Google and Wiktionary, and the second one listed by
dictionary.com), it is clear that a rule change is in fact an action. As
corroborating evidence, consider that there are no provisions for
changing the rules by dependent action at the moment, but there used to
be, and nobody seems to have objected to the term "dependent action".
There seems to be no obvious reason why rule changes would not be
actions where other similar things (such as contract changes) would be,
and thus no reason why the scam in question failed; therefore, the scam
in question did in fact succeed in creating a rule called "Scams to fix
Scams[ters]".

The relevant part of the rule "Scams to fix Scams[ters]" (which as far
as I know has no ID number yet) is:
{{{
      ais523 CAN, MAY and may revoke the Patent Title Scamster from
      comex by announcement, and is authorized to do so. This takes
      precedence over all other rules, especially ones which say that
      Scamster cannot be revoked.
}}}
This rule has Power 1, and takes precedence over rule 1922 because it
explicitly takes precedence and they have the same Power. Therefore,
"Scams to fix Scams[ters]" allows and authorizes me to remove the patent
title in question from comex, and provides a mechanism for me to do so.
Rule 649 secures changes in patent titles by proposal at power 2, but
this particular change was not made by proposal, so is entirely possible
at power 1. (It also restricts the means by which patent titles can be
awarded, but not the means by which they can be revoked; besides, even
if revocations were treated the same way as awards, the conditions would
be met, as ais523 was specifically authorized to make the change.)

Treating the typo in the statement of the CFJ as irrelevant here (as it
does not cause ambiguity), CFJ 2213 is TRUE. (Note that this also means
that #really-a-cow is no longer a Public Forum, even if it was one in
the first place, and that I did win by Points on Tuesday, the two other
parts of the scam.)

========================================================================

Judge ais523's Evidence:

ais523 wrote:
> Rule 2141 says, in part:
> {{{
>       A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern
>       the game generally.  A rule's content takes the form of
>       a text, and is unlimited in scope.  In particular, a rule
>       may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,
>       make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,
>       prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the
>       rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things
>       in a conditional manner.
> }}}
>
> Rule 105 says, in part:
> {{{
>       Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
>       as part of its effect,
>
>       (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum
>           of the power specified by the enacting instrument,
>           defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not
>           specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.
>           The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new
>           rule, which if present shall prevail.  The ID number of the
>           new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any
>           attempt to so specify is null and void.
>
>       (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
>           rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record
>           of it.
>
>       (c) amend the text of a rule.
>
>       (d) retitle a rule.
>
>       (e) change the power of a rule.
> }}}
>
> Rule 2192 says, in part:
> {{{
>       The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of
>       the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take, and
>       SHALL act on behalf of the Monster to ensure that the Monster
>       fulfills all of its duties.
> }}}
>
> CFJ 2002 found that rule 2193 was the Monster, and nobody objected to
> this at the time. Therefore, rule 2192 implies that the Mad Scientist
> CAN act on behalf of rule 2193 to take any action that rule 2193 "may
> take". Rule 2141 lists the actions that a rule "may take", in general,
> and there is no reason why it would be different for rule 2193 in
> particular. Therefore, I conclude that it is POSSIBLE for the Mad
> Scientist to act on behalf of rule 2193 to "modify the rules or the
> application thereof". Rule 105, which takes precedence, implies that
> rule changes are only possible as permitted by "other rules", but in
> this case rules 2192 and 2141 are permitting the change, so there is
> no problem there; it also enumerates the kind of changes that can be
> made, and prevents any other sort of change.
>
> Rule 2140 is also relevant here, and prevents the power-1 rule 2192
> from changing the power of or modifying a substantive aspect of a
> more powerful rule, and also prevents it causing things to become
> more powerful than 1. It does not, however, prevent rule 2192 (and
> therefore the Mad Scientist acting on its behalf) creating a Power-1
> rule.
>
> Therefore, I act on behalf of rule 2192 to create a Power-1 rule with
> title "Scams to fix Scams[ters]", and the following text:
> {{{
>       ais523 can create and destroy points by announcement, in
>       anyone's possession, and change the ownership of points by
>       announcement.  However, if point holdings are changed in this
>       way, then 5 minutes later all points are destroyed and a number
>       of points is created in each player's possession equal to the
>       number of points they had 6 minutes earlier (i.e. 1 minute
>       before the change).
>
>       ais523 can flip the Publicity of a forum to Foreign by
>       announcement, as long as that forum was Foreign at some point
>       within the previous 7 days.
>
>       ais523 can repeal this rule by announcement; this rule
>       explicitly permits this change to the ruleset.
>
>       ais523 CAN, MAY and may revoke the Patent Title Scamster from
>       comex by announcement, and is authorized to do so. This takes
>       precedence over all other rules, especially ones which say that
>       Scamster cannot be revoked.
>
> }}}
>
> Then, I create 100 points in the possession of ais523, then submit the
> following Win Announcement: {{ais523 has at least 100 points, and is
> the only player who meets this condition.}} (5 minutes later the point
> totals will reset themeselves.)
>
> Then, I flip the Publicity of #really-a-cow to Foreign.
>
> Then, I revoke the Patent Title Scamster from comex.
>
> [It is traditional to use such scams to fix their own loopholes. I
> promise not to create any further rules, or modify any rules, through
> this scam, except to fix the loophole once I figure out how. This is a
> word-of-honour promise as if it were a pledge I could just use the
> scam
> to get rid of the pledge.]
>
> --
> ais523

========================================================================

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

I intend to call for appeal of CFJ 2213 with 2 support and recommend
REASSIGN, given the clear and obvious self-interest of the part of the
judge.

========================================================================

Appellant ais523's Arguments:

Hmm... I support this. Ideally I'd like an appeals panel to look at it
and AFFIRM the judgement, so that it's been looked at by someone who
isn't interested, but if I end up on the appeals panel I'll be
REASSIGNing for obvious reasons. I think the judgement is correct,
though, and suspect a new judge will agree with me.

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

The caller's argument hinges on the definition of "action", however
there is another consideration.  What empowers the Rule in question
to act?  The Caller suggests a combination of R2141, R105, and R2192.

R2141 described Rules in general:
      A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern
      the game generally.  A rule's content takes the form of
      a text, and is unlimited in scope.  In particular, a rule
      may define in-game entities and regulate their behavior,
      make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,
      prescribe or proscribe certain player behavior, modify the
      rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things
      in a conditional manner.
This text is a very descriptive, broad definition.  There's two
points relevant to this case.  First:  "A rule's content takes
the form of a text."  In other words, a rule fundamentally *is*
its text, no more, no less.

Secondly, "In particular, a rule may ... modify the rules or the
application thereof".  An important question is how to treat the
"may" in this sentence.  Importantly and with due consideration,
we SHOULD NOT treat this may as MAY.  If we did, we disempower the
rules entirely, as it turns into a self-contradiction ("if the
rules do it, it's not against the rules, even if the rules say
it is") or tautology ("if the rules say it's not against the
rules, then this rule says it's not against the rules").  In order
to be true to the "the Rules are their text and this Rule described
their empowerment and function" without self-contradiction or
tautology,  we must infer the "may" to mean that a Rule can do
something iff it's against the Rules AND iff it is permitted by
(i.e. contained within) the rules themselves.  In other words,
with respect to changing the rules the preamble of R2141 says in
essence:

"If the rules say they may change the rules, they may change the
rules".

Now the section in R105 says:  "Where permitted by other rules,
an instrument [a Rule] generally can, as part of its effect
[change rules].  Here can is taken easily as CAN.  Now, this CAN
has the qualifier of "where permitted by other rules."  And how
do rules permit things?  As defined in R2141, by their text.
Since the sentence says "where permitted", this shows that the
permission must come from somewhere.  Where?  From other Rules.
And "from other rules" means from the text of other rules.  Most
importantly, we cannot construe the lack of a specific prohibition
into a "permission" in the clause "where permitted".  While Agora
has as an old tradition "what's not prohibited is permitted", the
original version of that excluded rules changes, and the current
version (R101) is specific to players; and in both cases, there
was an explicit clause in the Rules (not mere silence) that
enabled the permission; this is not extant for Rules blanket-
enabling Rules.

So, in sum R105 says:

"If the rules say they can change the rules, they can change the
rules".

Finally, R2192 says in part "The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf
of the Monster to take any action that the Monster may take..."
and R2193 has been found to be the Monster.  What actions may
R2193 take?  Well, as discussed above, the "may" of this context
is not solely MAY but is used in the sense of "the rules may do
what they themselves permit, where they permit it." So R2192 boils
down to:

"If the Rules say R2193 can change the rules, R2193 can change
the rules."

Therefore, in sum, we have:
R2141:  "If the rules say they may change the rules, they may
         change the rules".
R105:   "If the rules say they can change the rules, they can
         change the rules".
R2192:  "If the Rules say R2193 may change the rules, R2193 may
         change the rules [and the Mad Scientist can do it on
                                 R2193's behalf]."

So, three statements of "If the Rules say...".  And no statements
where the Rules actually and specifically "say".  FALSE.

========================================================================