Index ← 2282a CFJ 2282 2283 → text
==============================  CFJ 2282  ==============================

    comex's annotation to Rule 1367 worked.

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

Caller:                                 ehird

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 2282a
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ehird:                        19 Nov 2008 16:21:26 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     19 Nov 2008 17:16:20 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 25 Nov 2008 21:03:54 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     26 Nov 2008 13:23:34 GMT
Appealed by Elysion:                    27 Nov 2008 14:47:33 GMT
Appealed by ehird:                      27 Nov 2008 15:32:02 GMT
Appeal 2282a:                           27 Nov 2008 15:32:02 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     19 Jan 2009 00:23:25 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     19 Jan 2009 00:23:25 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 23 Jan 2009 23:24:03 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

This one:

I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

Even if the scam clause converting annotations into amendments
was added to the rules, any reasonable definition of "annotation"
requires that the annotation was true, which this purported
annotation was not.

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

Appellant ais523's Arguments:

I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support, because I
disagree heavily with the reasoning (regardless of the actual
result). In particular, I see no reason why annotations should
necessarily be true; none of the definitions I've come across
imply this, for instance. It is a common meme on programming
fora on the Internet that many of the annotations in /The
Annotated ANSI C Standard/ are false, for instance (see
 for a source for
this); yet I haven't seen anyone claim that due to their
falseness they are not annotations.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

First, let's examine Power-based arguments.  Consider the following
hypothetical rules:

  3000 "A person CAN alter a rule by announcement."
  3001 "A person CAN cause a rule to alter itself by announcement."
  3002 "A person CAN cause this rule to alter itself by announcement."
  3003 "A rule is altered when a person announces it is."
  3004 "This rule is altered when a person announces it is."

3000 fails because persons themselves have no Power.
3003 works unless the other rule has higher Power.
3004 works.

By game custom, 3002 is equivalent to 3004.  It's less clear whether
3001 should be equivalent to 3003; if it is, then 1681 isn't blocked
on Power, as it and 1367 are both Power=1.

Second, Rule 1681 states:

      Whenever a rule is modified in any way (including a power or
      title change), the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself by
      adding a historical annotation, which MUST include:

      a) The type of change.

      b) The date on which the change took effect.

      c) The mechanism that specified the change.

      d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that
         proposal's ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).

comex omitted b) (see evidence for details), but did this make eir
attempt invalid or illegal?  On the one hand, MUST is clearly an
attempt to invoke MMI; on the other, "which" arguably attaches it
to the annotation itself (not the Rulekeepor's action), in which
case MMI's definitions do not apply.  Here are all the other
clauses using "must":

   101 "... a society, to function, must balance its Rules ..."
  1681 "The listing of each rule in the SLR must include ..."
       "The FLR must contain ..."
   683 "To be valid, the ballot must satisfy ..."
   208 "To be valid, this announcement must satisfy ..."
  2230 "To be considered a valid NoV, the notice must specify ..."
  1922 "In order for the Title to be filled,
        A level of Support must call for it."
  2147 "In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must ..."
       "It must also ..."

In each case, "must" is attached to something other than an action;
furthermore, in general, "To X, Y must Z" (where X = "be valid" may
be left implicit) is equivalent to "Y is not X unless Z".  I hereby
interpret the intended scam clause of 1681 as working the same way.

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

Judge Murphy's Evidence:

http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-November
/005394.html

>From agora-discussion@agoranomic.org  Tue Nov 18 20:41:11 2008
From: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org (comex)
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
Subject: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
Message-ID: <6bf32280811181241k6aeb0ed5qe841bcdb6dca254@mail.gmail.com>

> Proposal 5952 (Democratic, AI=2.0, Interest=1) by Taral
> Promotor protection
> Change the power of Rule 1607 to 2.

This fails because the power of Rule 1607 is already 2.


> Proposal 5955 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=0) by ais523, Elysion, Murphy
> Fix Balance of Power
> Append the following proposal to rule 1367 (Degrees):

I'm interpreting "the following proposal" as "the following text";
arguably in fact the new rule text is a proposal, albeit a useless one
that's never been submitted.  (See Rule 106.)

I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}

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