Index ← 2424a CFJ 2424 2425b → text
==============================  CFJ 2424  ==============================

    Murphy's recent attempt to cause Rule 2223 to amend itself to read
    'This rule intentionally left blank' failed because it was ambiguous
    which of two mechanisms were used to do the amendment.

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

Caller:                                 ais523
Barred:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2424a
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2424b
Decision:                               REMAND


Judge:                                  ehird
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       16 Mar 2009 16:39:09 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      23 Mar 2009 16:02:28 GMT
Judged TRUE by ehird:                   23 Mar 2009 16:23:10 GMT
Appealed by G.:                         24 Mar 2009 21:54:18 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     24 Mar 2009 23:24:20 GMT
Appealed by Taral:                      24 Mar 2009 23:59:46 GMT
Appeal 2424a:                           24 Mar 2009 23:59:46 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     04 Apr 2009 16:16:22 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      04 Apr 2009 16:16:22 GMT
Judged TRUE by ehird:                   07 Apr 2009 22:57:23 GMT
Appealed by root:                       07 Apr 2009 23:16:07 GMT
Appealed by woggle:                     07 Apr 2009 23:36:51 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     07 Apr 2009 23:44:41 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli:                07 Apr 2009 23:47:01 GMT
Appeal 2424b:                           07 Apr 2009 23:47:01 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     15 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT
Assigned to ehird:                      15 Apr 2009 00:00:17 GMT
Judged FALSE by ehird:                  15 Apr 2009 14:34:29 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
{{{
      Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
      that change to be void and without effect.
}}}

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

The problem here is that the source of the mechanism really can matter.
For instance, Murphy was recently simultaneously contestmaster of two
contests (The Werewolves of Nomic Crossing, and the Fantasy Rules
Contest). During this period, e attempted to award points. Rule 2233
says:
{{{
           Its contestmaster CAN award points (up to this total) to
           its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as
           explicitly described in its contract.
}}}
Ignore the SHALL part of this for the moment; I'm interested in the CAN.
There are two sources of the ability to award points by announcement
(two contests), but which is used certainly matters; it alters the
remaining point allotal of the contest that is used. Murphy announced in
the message
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg11471.html
"I award 8 points to Wooble and 12 points to ais523.", without
specifying the mechanism (obviously by announcement, that was an
announcement) or the source of the mechanism. I'm not entirely convinced
that that worked (although IIRC points are self-ratifying, so this
doesn't affect anything); certainly, only context made it obvious which
contest was granting the point-awardal power. In the case of Murphy's
recent attempt to effectively blank rule 2223, the mechanism (or its
source) does not make a ridiculous amount of difference, although it
does affect the result of the first of the CFJs I called.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

As in this specific instance, there may be many rules where two rules
independently permit (through "CAN by announcement") the exact same
action with the exact same consequences, and no difference in follow-on
effects.  In such instances, it is not for the good of the game (nor
following custom) to add extra-legal requirements to the announcement
of specifying which rule did the enabling, if "the rules" as a whole
empower an action, it is the same action whether or not it is empowered
twice.

In a recent example, I announced by intent to deputize for an IADoP
action.  Then I became the IADoP.  However, I could still (having
announced my intent) "deputize" to perform the action (The deputization
rule doesn't prevent me from deputizing for myself).  Therefore two
independent rules say that I CAN do the same thing by announcement.
It is not for the good of the game to require me to specify which rule
I use when I perform the action, as that would require us to constantly
hunt for every possible permissions route every time.

In the example ais523 gives for points, the difference matters for
it depletes a reserve of points awardable for a particular contest.
However, that means the consequences differ.  In the current situation,
the consequences do not.

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

Judge ehird's Arguments:

TRUE; requiring preciseness in matters of ambiguity is of course very
important, and even moreso in the case of important things like rule
changes.

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

Appellant G.'s Arguments:

The judge's
cursory claim that "all ambiguity matters" is just that, cursory.  R105
talks about ambiguity in specifying rule changes, and says nothing about
cases where there's multiple possible mechanisms that all work on their
own, and there's no ambiguity on whether they work independently.  In
particular, there are several non-rule change mechanisms that this would
break; I gave examples in my gratuitous arguments and the judge ignored
these.

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

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

As I said yesterday in my own intent, there are no
substantive differences between the two methods (e.g. one awarding
points for using it).

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

Judge ehird's Arguments:

I accept ais523's and my previous arguments; claiming my claim is
cursory is cursory in itself: I have given reasonable arguments and so
have others. I see no reason why my arguments are less reasonable than
others's.

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

Appellant root's Arguments:

I intend to appeal these with 2 support; I recommend REASSIGN since
ehird seems intent on ignoring the appeal panel's instructions.

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

Appellant woggle's Arguments:

For the record, I note (as a member of the appeals panel who recommended
REMAND) that I do not mind ehird judging to the same outcome; however, I
would've appreciated eir amending eir arguments to, for example,
reference rules or explain what the R105 "specification of a rule
change" is.

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

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

I support both of these.  The arguments so far can be summarized thusly:

  ais523> In the situation "I award  to ", the method
          matters because different limits are used up.

  others> That only covers situations that have substantively different
          side effects based on the method.  The situation actually at
          hand does not.  Things break badly if one interprets such
          situations as requiring specification anyway.

   ehird> Preciseness is important.

ehird's arguments do not address the specific claims made and rebutted
by anyone else.  That is why they are less reasonable.

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

Appellant Machiavelli's Arguments:

I support both of these, as ehird did not make a better judgement or
submit new arguments.

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

Judge ehird's Arguments:

FALSE, Goethe and comex have convinced me.

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