Index ← 2823 CFJ 2824 2825 → text
==============================  CFJ 2824  ==============================

    If Proposal 6740 had been AI-3 and been adopted and taken effect at
    power-3, it would have awarded a win to one or more players.

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

Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           30 Jul 2010 19:06:03 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    02 Aug 2010 03:49:17 GMT
scshunt recused:                        02 Aug 2010 13:53:31 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     04 Aug 2010 02:23:11 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  13 Aug 2010 08:50:20 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

It's too late to appeal the judgement of TRUE on the same statement (CF2808).
At issue (not considered by the 2808 judge) is whether, when a Proposal states
in its text that it awards a win, does it:

  (a) actually award a win; or
  (b) merely purport to award a win, which is "intercepted" by
      R2188 into a win condition (not directly awarded by the proposal).

Note that the Proposal text directly states "award a win".  We often allow
proposals to set values that we otherwise CANNOT set.  Winning is not
"secured" in explicit words, but perhaps R2186 restricts winning to
defined win conditions and therefore does in fact count as secured-2
by R1688 definitions (hence the question on whether a power-3 version
would override R2186).  A lower-powered proposal may also conflict
with R2140(c)'s "modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument"
clause.

But these sort of CANNOTs have been overridden by proposals in the past
without blinking an eye!  When we install an officer by Proposal, or
reset currencies or points directly, that's something we also generally
CANNOT do, but we've taken it to work, even in a power-1 proposal...

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

Caller's Evidence:

> Proposal 6740 (Purple, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by ais523
> The first rule of this proposal is...
>
> Award a win to player who did not acknowledge the existence of this
> proposal in a public or discussion forum after the time it was submitted
> and before the time it was adopted.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

Unlike Rule 2186's explicit attempt at prohibition, these examples are
implicitly prohibited by Rule 2125:

      c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while
         certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action CANNOT be
         performed except as allowed by the rules.  In particular, if
         the action in question is publishing a type of document, then
         a public message is not that type of document (even if it is
         labeled as such) except as allowed by the rules.

      e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which
         some player is required to be a recordkeepor.  Such an action
         CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the
         rules.

but in the case of an adopted proposal, "except as allowed by the rules"
is triggered by Rule 106:

      If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
      then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
      from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
      its adoption index, and then it takes effect.

The judge should also consider whether Rule 2188 implicitly re-defines
"awarding a win" along the lines of "not attempting to cause those
players to win directly, but merely attempting to trigger this rule".

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

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

I find that, yes, Rule 2188 implicitly re-defines "awarding a win" as
described in the last paragraph of my gratuitous arguments.  There
might be an edge case involving a proposal clearly intended to avoid
that definition, but Proposal 6740 was not such a proposal.

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