Index ← 3170 CFJ 3171 3172 → text
==============================  CFJ 3171  ==============================

    ais523 is inactive.

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

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by omd:                          16 Feb 2012 19:49:33 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         24 Feb 2012 00:32:58 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     24 Feb 2012 23:04:02 GMT
Reconsideration requested by omd:       25 Feb 2012 04:28:47 GMT
Reconsideration requested by ehird:     26 Feb 2012 20:07:39 GMT
Reconsideration requested by G.:        26 Feb 2012 21:45:09 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         26 Feb 2012 21:45:09 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     26 Feb 2012 21:45:09 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

I create a Slave Golem in my possession, naming it "Mr. Incredible".

I cause Mr. Incredible to make each of the following players inactive:
Arkady, ais523, davidcjackman, ehird, Flameshadowxeroshin, G.,
Machiavelli, Murphy, Pavitra, Sonny Jim, 441344, woggle, and Yally.

      The owner of a Slave Golem CAN cause it to take actions that
      are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by announcement.

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

Caller's Arguments:

Making ais523 inactive is an action that is "not otherwise
IMPOSSIBLE"-- in particular, ais523 can do it by announcement, and any
player can do it without objection.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

Rule 2125/7 (Regulation Regulations) in combination with R101(i) does
put an implicit, blanket of "IMPOSSIBLE to change except as explicit in
the Rules" over regulated quantities.  Thus, a rule that permits
"otherwise IMPOSSIBLE" actions does not override the fact that it is
generally IMPOSSIBLE to change regulated quantities except by mechanisms
explicitly permitted, such as without objection in this case.

This blanket IMPOSSIBILITY is implicit rather than explicit (i.e. "where
the rules are silent") though in R101(i), it exists as a direct exceptio
probat regulam.  It hinges on the definition of "otherwise" with respect
to implicit limitations; a case could be made either way (and may have
to rely on "best interests", unfortunately).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

The first method being limited to the announcer is an
inherent part of it, and similarly without-objection is an inherent
part of the second.  Past exceptions to this common-sense approach
have depended on alternate constructions, e.g. "the Vizier can do
anything that an officer can do" allowing em to resign an office
held by someone else.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

It seems to me that "make ais523 inactive" is the action,
ais523 is the actor, and "by announcement or without objection" is the
method - if ais523 made emself inactive, and then someone used a
dictatorship rule to make ais523 inactive, you would say they took the
same action.*  The rule refers to the possibility of the action, not
the actor or method.

* (a dictatorship rule rather than the existing without objection
method because even though Dependent Actions simply allows you to
perform the action by announcement once you have approval, "I do X"
and "without objection I do X" are visually different and
instinctively I would consider them separate actions; it probably
doesn't matter)

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

It has been discovered that R2130 contains the text "Changes to Activity
are Secured."  R2130 is power-2.  By R1688:
       A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the
       securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that
       change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as
       allowed by an Instrument with Power greater than or equal to the
       change's Power Threshold.
The Slave Golems Rule is also power-2, and reads:
    The owner of a Slave Golem CAN cause it to take
    actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by announcement.

This shifts the burden somewhat so that the Slave Golems rule must
explicitly allow the change.  But "otherwise" does not explicitly
allow, in fact it defers to other rules (like R1688 on security).

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

The full clause in question in R2361 reads "The owner of a Slave Golem
CAN cause it to take actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE by
announcement."  The 'otherwise', here, must refer to the rest of the
ruleset (i.e. "otherwise = other than as a result of this clause").

Currently, changes in Activity are Secured in Rule 2130 (note: it was
discovered, in the course of this scam, that Proposal 6959 added the
Security, although the Rulekeepor inadvertently did not record this
change.  If for some reason Proposal 6959's change to R2130 failed, this
judgement should be revisited, as the implied limitation via Regulation
Regulations is a little more tenuous).

This makes activity IMPOSSIBLE to change except as allowed by a power-2
rule (R1688).  While R2361 is in fact Power-2, it has discounted itself
from providing that allowance by deferring to the rest of the ruleset
with 'otherwise'.  Therefore, it is in fact 'otherwise' impossible for
a person to switch another person's activity in the manner attempted.

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

Request for reconsideration by :

I intend to call for reconsideration of this judgement with two
support.  Changing Activity is regulated per R2125 c) and e) and thus
impossible to perform "except as allowed by the rules", while Rule
1688 states that securing an action makes it impossible "except as
allowed by an Instrument with Power greater than or equal to the
change's Power Threshold".  Since all the rules in question are
Instruments with Power >= 2, the restrictions are equivalent in this
case, so it doesn't make sense for the judgement to hinge on whether
or not it's secured.

Moreover, if the judge's arguments are extended to apply to regulated
actions, then neither Slave Golems nor the President can actually do
anything, which common sense suggests is the wrong interpretation.
(In the gratuitous arguments for this case, I anticipated an argument
that the "action" includes the person doing it and/or method, which
would separate changing someone else's activity from the ordinary
things Mr. Incredible was 'supposed' to be able to do, but this
judgement does not make any such distinction.)

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

Disputant omd's arguments are either purposefully or idiotically
obtuse.  I have clearly and directly stated in my original
judgement why security is applicable in spite of the rules in
question being >=2.  It is clear in context that the "otherwise"
merely adds a method ("by announcement of owner") to things that
are POSSIBLE for a second class player to do given the rest of the
ruleset.    As the "otherwise" clause does not in itself add a
single new permission, but only a method for the owner, the fact
that the clause is power-2 does not get around the security.  To
twist the meaning to adding broader general permissions is a
willful misreading and an unsupported interpretation.

However, you may not agree with this.  Therefore, I'll formally
add the argument that does not depend on Security, which provides
the same result using Regulation Regulations.

It is clear that the CAN clauses in R2130 for flipping activity
list "certain conditions" for the CANs.  The "certain conditions"
are as follows:

A.  The ability to flip one's own activity is conditional on
the switch being one's own;
B.  The without objection is conditional on the dependent method
being satisfied (method can be a "condition" in R2125(c); e.g.
"the condition that this method is used").

Since these are the only two specified conditions for flipping
activity, by R2125(c) it CANNOT be done except as specified.  In
other words, in standard language, it is indeed "otherwise
IMPOSSIBLE" (otherwise than under those specific conditions) to
flip activity; which is the exact limitation that R2361 places on
the golems.

That slaves' powers are not much right now (i.e. that slaves are
fairly useless) is not the problem of this rule.

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

Judge G.'s Evidence:

Rule 2125/7 (Power=3)
Regulation Regulations
[extract]
       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.

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