Index ← 2650 CFJ 2651 2652 → text
==============================  CFJ 2651  ==============================

    If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be POSSIBLE for me to
    indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A.

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

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by omd:                          07 Aug 2009 19:14:23 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         08 Aug 2009 16:13:10 GMT
G. recused:                             10 Aug 2009 03:38:30 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     16 Aug 2009 19:50:18 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                 19 Aug 2009 00:30:58 GMT

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009, comex wrote:
>> If Contract A were a rule, it would be possible to use the without 15
>> objections mechanism to create a new rule; therefore, R1728
>> authorizes
>> it as long as the effects of the action are restricted to altering
>> entities and/or attributes whose existence depends on Contract A.
>
> If contract A were a Rule, it would be a Rule without Power, as no
> Power has been given to the rule or enacting instrument.

By Rule 2141, it is not possible for a rule to have power outside
[1,4].  The hypothetical Contract A rule must have some Power in that
set; the exact value doesn't matter.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

But how it got to that value does matter, and R1688 has precedence over
R2141.  Note: to act, the contract must have power as if it were a rule,
not act "as if it were a rule of power".  (It must have the power, not
be acting "as if" it had the power).  -G.

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 1728/24 (Power=3)
Dependent Actions

      A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract
      as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above
      requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that
      action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes
      whose existence depends on that contract.

If Contract A were a rule, it would be possible to use the without 15
objections mechanism to create a new rule; therefore, R1728 authorizes
it as long as the effects of the action are restricted to altering
entities and/or attributes whose existence depends on Contract A.  The
new rule is an entity whose existence depends on Contract A (because
it repeals itself if the contract is destroyed), so this condition is
satisfied.

One counter-argument is that "creating" and "altering" are different
things, but game custom is strongly in favor of interpreting
"altering" in a general sense.  Otherwise, in a contract like:
{
Oddballs are an asset regulated by this contract.  Any party CAN
create an Oddball in eir own possession by announcement, or in any
other party's possession without objection.
}
the first mechanism would work but the second wouldn't, which is
bizarre (and I'm sure there are real contracts which would be broken
under such an interpretation).

Note that Rule 1728 takes precedence over Rule 2140 (Power Controls
Mutability), so any issue of the power of the contract is moot.

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

Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following contract:

{
This contract is a public contract and a pledge, known as Contract A.
comex CAN make Contract Changes to this contract by announcement.  If
this contract is a Rule, it hereby allows itself to make Rule Changes.

Anyone CAN, without 15 objections, cause this contract to enact a new
Power-1 Rule with the following text:

      If Contract A is destroyed, this Rule immediately repeals
      itself.
      comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.

}

I intend, without 15 objections, to cause Contract A to enact a new
Power-1 Rule with the following text:

      If Contract A is destroyed, this Rule immediately repeals
      itself.
      comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

[first message]

As you predict, I believe that the Rule Change is the Rule Change--
the creation of the rule with power X, title Y, text Z.  Therefore,
e.g., I could perform the same Rule Change by a (potentially entirely)
different mechanism without getting public review again.

I think the arguments in CFJ 2424 (including your own) are highly
relevant here.  In particular, in that case there was an ambiguity
which of two different Rules was indirectly authorizing a Rule Change;
in this case there is an ambiguity as to whether (reduce it to two
options for argument) an authorizing Rule had Power 1 or Power 3.  In
each case, the attempted Rule Change would succeed and have the same
effect no matter which way the ambiguity is resolved, but a CFJ on the
mechanism would be UNDETERMINED.  In that case, it was decided that
the ambiguity matters only if it makes a substantive difference in the
outcome (e.g. it counts toward one points total or other).  As you
wrote,
{
It is perfectly true that a rules amendment could *make* the actions
for rule changes that Murphy attempted into different actions (for
example with ais523's recent proposal attempt) but currently that is not
so.
}

I believe it's not in the interests of the game for the limits of the
ambiguity requirement to be themselves ambiguous.  If they are
restricted to actual ambiguity in the nature of the change-- the
"specification of the rule change", not its circumstances, as I think
was intended, there is no need to judge in each case whether some
ambiguity is significant.  If the ambiguity would cause the creation
of a rule with UNDETERMINED properties, it is significant and the
action fails; otherwise, it is insignificant and does not block the
action.  (Contract A is not a real rule and there was no rule change
creating it; it's hypothetical, so the ambiguity restriction does not
apply to its own "creation".)

So, is there a specific modicum of significance that distinguishes
this case from CFJ 2424?  If so, what is it?

[second message]

By the way, I forgot-- it's even closer to CFJ 2424 than that.
Remember, I (publicly) decided that the original scam would fail due
to R105, and instead plan to have Contract A cause Rule 2105 (or
another real Power-1 rule) to create the new rule.  In this case, Rule
2105 (The Map of Agora) is the enacting agent and there is no
ambiguity as to *its* substantive aspects.  Like 2424, the only issue
is as to the nature of the rule authorizing a player to cause the
enacting agent to cause a Rule Change (whew...).  In that case, which
rule, in this, its power.

[G.'s reply (I hope you don't mind me posting it?)]

First, if a Contract A "causes Rule 2105 to do something" that is
*definitely* changing a substantive aspect of R2105 (the aspect of "what
R2105 does") so I don't think that works if your previous way doesn't.

I agree it's very similar to 2424.  But I reason as follows:
1.  In CFJ2424, we had two rules with known properties, both of which
could have inarguably done the rule change.
2.  Here, we have a wholly hypothetical rule.  I said previously we
know its power is between 1-4.  But we don't even know that!  If we're
in the bounds of a hypothetical instrument, it could (hypothetically) have
its power set in a manner that contradicts and is of higher power than
rule 2141.  Once you are assuming an entity with hypothetical properties,
you could say "it could do anything" or "it's ambiguous, so it can't
do anything it's ambiguous about."  That just crosses the R105 line.

It's also possible that CFJ2424, dealing with a trivial difference,
I didn't see the full ramifications, and so it should be overruled
once they become clear.

[my reply, not previously sent]

IMO 2105 isn't being altered [it's the same rule afterward, isn't
it?], just used as a "catalyst".  (N.B. for anyone reading: this is
about Rule 1728's restriction that it alter entities whose existence
depends on the contract, *not* the somewhat more stringent
requirements of Power Controls Mutability, which wouldn't apply if
Contract A were a rule with any Power in [1,4] as Rule 2105 is
Power-1.)

Nor is there any reason for the power to be set out of [1,4]; the most
natural way to assume Contract A is a rule is to assume that it has a
power within the Rule-prescribed range.

But I'm repeating myself, so let's see what other players think.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

> > JUDGE'S PROTO-ARGUMENTS:
> >
> > Let's start with the authorizing agent:  R1728/24 (power=3) reads in
> > part:
> >       A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract
> >       as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above
> >       requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that
> >       action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes
> >       whose existence depends on that contract.
>
> I think this can actually be shot down based on that last restriction,
> as the new rule (once created) would continue to exist independently
> of the contract.

The rule in question stated that it was repealed if the contract
disappeared.

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

The real conflict is between Rules 1728:

      A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract
      as if that contract were a rule, ...

and 2141:

      Every rule has power between one and four inclusive.  It is
      not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.

1728 takes precedence - particularly over 2141's "It is not possible" -
so it allows contract-defined dependent actions as if the contract were
a power=0 rule.  Rule 2140 then prevents that hypothetical power=0 rule
from creating a power=1 rule, and Rule 1728 does not conflict with it.

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