Index ← 2481 CFJ 2482a 2482 → text
============================  Appeal 2482a  ============================


Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               REMAND


Panelist:                               Pavitra
Decision:                               AFFIRM


Panelist:                               G.
Decision:                               AFFIRM


Panelist:                               scshunt
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Panelist:                               Wooble
Decision:                               REASSIGN

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

History:

Appeal initiated:                       04 May 2009 18:19:14 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            05 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra (panelist):         05 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT
Assigned to G. (panelist):              05 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT
Assigned to scshunt (panelist):         05 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT
Assigned to Wooble (panelist):          05 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT
G. moves to AFFIRM:                     05 May 2009 00:38:55 GMT
Pavitra moves to AFFIRM:                05 May 2009 04:35:03 GMT
Wooble moves to REASSIGN:               05 May 2009 12:41:41 GMT
scshunt moves to REASSIGN:              11 May 2009 14:06:50 GMT
root moves to REMAND:                   12 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT
Final decision (REMAND):                12 May 2009 00:03:00 GMT

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

Panelist G.'s Arguments:

First, I note that the judgement here doesn't answer the scam at all but
rather answers a more arcane technical point; ais523 called a second CFJ
with a better phrasing, so there is no conflict of interest.  From a
practical view, since the second CFJ exists, better to close this one on
a technical point than ask it to be re-examined while a second judge looks
at the second case.

As reasoning for affirm, the following discussion thread:

I wrote:
> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:
>>> Note that R1482 doesn't explicitly define precedence when there's no
>>> conflict, so precedence is not defined in the rules, so a "rules are
>>> silent" argument can be made on either side.  It's all semantic.  If
>>> Sentence A is in Rule A, and Sentence B is in Rule B, and Rule A >
>>> Rule B, but Sentence A and Sentence B are wholly unrelated and have no
>>> conflict, you can say either:
>>>
>>> 1.  Rule A > Rule B, therefore sentence A > sentence B, but it doesn't
>>> matter or affect anything at the moment (ais523's opinion).
>>>
>>> 2.  Rule A > Rule B, but sentence A and sentence B aren't in the same
>>> units, so comparisons aren't meaningful (Wooble's appeals argument).
>>>
>>> I personally prefer #1 (ais523) out of aesthetics, and also (in case
>>> Sentence C in Rule C somehow makes A and B conflict) the lines of
>>> precedence remain constant.
>>
>> Proto:
>>
>> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Paradox!" reading:
>>
>>      Unless Rule 101 takes precedence over this rule, persons have no
>>      rights.
>
> Nice.  A very good argument for keeping ais523's opinion.  -Goethe

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

Panelist Pavitra's Arguments:

I opine AFFIRM with the below-quoted arguments. I intend, with the
Support of the rest of the panel, to cause the panel to judge AFFIRM and
publish the below-quoted arguments as a concurring opinion with an error
rating of 25.

Benjamin Caplan wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>> Proto:
>>>
>>> Create a new power-1 rule titled "Paradox!" reading:
>>>
>>>      Unless Rule 101 takes precedence over this rule, persons have no
>>>      rights.
>>
>> Nice.  A very good argument for keeping ais523's opinion.  -Goethe
>
> Unfortunately, this is Agora, and "interpretation X would have
> potentially catastrophic consequences" does not automatically imply
> "interpretation X is wrong". Reductio ad absurdum must be handled very
> carefully to ensure that the 'absurdity' is actually false rather than
> merely absurd.
>
> Goethe's arguments on this matter are rather more persuasive:
>
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 May 2009, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>> That's the point.  For two rules not in conflict, precedence is
>>> undefined (specifically, R1482 does not define it).
>>
>> So the rules are silent on the matter, and ais523 (as judge to whom
>> we defer) can reasonably define it to follow the rules of conflicts.
>
> Is this interpretation allowed? Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with
> Unequal Power) says:
>       No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
>       to stipulate any other means of determining precedence
>       between Rules of unequal Power.  This applies to changes by
>       the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.
>       This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit
>       such a change to the Ruleset.
>
> I would like to be able to argue that this only restricts defining
> precedence between Rules, not between sentences. However, I can find no
> justification in the Ruleset for doing so. Precedence between sentences
> in Rules only appears to occur because conflict between sentences causes
> the Rules containing those sentences to conflict.
>
> Now, it is possible there may be a way out. Rule 217 may offer a
> definition of 'precedence' if and only if the relevant language was
> added to it before the second paragraph of Rule 1482 was added.
> R1482par2 only forbids _changes_ that would define precedence; it does
> not stamp out _preexisting_ definitions of precedence.
>
> According to the annotations on the Full Logical Ruleset published 01
> May 2009, Rule 217 was last amended in August 2007. Rule 1482 has been
> amended twice, once in 1997 (labeled as "cosmetic") and once in May 2007.
>
> Examining the archives reveals that the relevant amendment to R1482 was
> the last one, by Proposal 4942
> (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-May/0
02961.html).
>
> The last amendment to Rule 217, by Proposal 5105
> (http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-Augus
t/003160.html),
> is the only substantive one after P4942 (the other merely retitled the
> rule).
>
> P5105 replaced the text of R217 outright, so I refer to the last
> publication of the ruleset before then to determine what the prior text was.
>
> This ruleset is found at
> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-July/0
03149.html
> and Rule 217/5 is found to have read as follows:
>
> Rule 217/5 (Power=3)
> Judgements Must Accord with the Rules
>
>       All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if
>       the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement
>       to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common
>       sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game
>       before applying other standards.
>
>       When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement
>       contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the
>       truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was
>       issued.
>
> For side-by-side comparison, the current Rule 217/6 reads:
>
> Rule 217/6 (Power=3)
> Interpreting the Rules
>
>       When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
>       takes precedence.  Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
>       unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
>       past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
>       game.
>
> The key change, then, appears to have been to generalize the standards
> that applied to judicial findings to a more general context.
>
> In particular, Proposal 5105 did not "cause a Rule to stipulate any
> other means of determining precedence between Rules of unequal Power".
> The stipulation was already present; Proposal 5105 merely extended the
> scope in which that stipulation applies.
>
> Lest anyone argue that the extension of scope does in fact infringe
> R1482par2 on the grounds that R217 now stipulates the definition in a
> context where it previously did not, I observe that this case, by virtue
> of being a call for judgement, falls within the umbra rather than the
> penumbra (as it were). As the question before us is the subject of a
> Call for Judgement, and the answer ultimately provided will be a
> Judgement, for the purposes of the Court we may say that the guiding
> principles given in Rule 217 are not restricted by the second paragraph
> of Rule 1482.
>
> Therefore, since the text is silent on precedence between nonconflicting
> rules of unequal power, let us consider game custom, common sense, past
> judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
>
>
> Consideration of the best interests of the game is the most easily
> evaluated of the four. root provides a very succinct and persuasive
> example (quoted above) of why it is in the interest of the game for
> precedence to be defined as if the rules conflicted.
>
> Game custom also appears to support this. I am a relative newcomer to
> Agora, and have little knowledge of its frankly vast history, but unless
> an older player contradicts me I will assume for the time being that the
> most directly relevant precedent is Rule 1482's definition of precedence
> between conflicting rules of unequal power.
>
> I do not remember seeing any past judgements cited in relation to this
> case so far. If anyone knows of any relevant precedents, please bring
> them up.
>
> Common sense at least appears to be forked two ways here. On the one
> hand, it seems extremely reasonable for the rules of precedence to apply
> in a latent sort of way when rules don't conflict. On the other hand,
> one tends to feel that if one rule takes precedence over another, then
> the trumped rule is thereby invalidated and rendered nonfunctional.
>
> A simple application of the idea, however, puts the lie to this second
> interpretation. When two rules only partially conflict -- that is, for
> example, when a higher-powered rule prevents part but not all of a
> lower-powered rule, common sense and game custom both immediately insist
> that the non-trumped part of the lower rule be allowed to stand.
> Although the two rules as wholes do indeed conflict, the precedence
> (which in this case can uncontroversially be said to exist) is latent
> with regard to the nonconflicting clauses of the lower-powered rule.
>
> A little thought, then, reveals that the common-sense interpretation
> must be that precedence occurs latently between nonconflicting rules.
>
>
> Considering the relative difficulty with which the present judicial
> panel was assembled, unless someone can find either a logical fallacy in
> the arguments here presented or a relevant judicial precedent implying
> FALSE, I recommend a ruling of AFFIRM with the above arguments as a
> concurring opinion and an error rating of 25 (since the original judge's
> arguments were correct, but incomplete).

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

Panelist Wooble's Arguments:

I opine REASSIGN.  Precedence is only defined where there is a
conflict and the judge did not examine whether there is such a
conflict.  Affirming the ruling of TRUE would set a precedent that a
conflict exists, which directly implies that forbidding excess NoVs to
be filed by announcement is a violation of a player's R101 rights.

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

Panelist scshunt's Arguments:

I opine REASSIGN for the reasons outlined by Wooble.

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

Panelist root's Arguments:

[no opinion given]

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