============================== CFJ 3300 ==============================
Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem.
Called by scshunt: 10 Apr 2013 05:19:50 GMT
Assigned to Wes: 14 Apr 2013 07:56:00 GMT
Wes recused: 27 Apr 2013 20:20:04 GMT
Assigned to Walker: 27 Apr 2013 20:21:22 GMT
Judged TRUE by Walker: 28 Apr 2013 19:52:34 GMT
Appealed by woggle: 28 Apr 2013 20:10:51 GMT
Appealed by Machiavelli: 28 Apr 2013 20:14:51 GMT
Appealed by scshunt: 28 Apr 2013 20:40:57 GMT
Appeal 3300a: 28 Apr 2013 20:40:57 GMT
REMITTED on Appeal: 12 May 2013 22:01:05 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 12 May 2013 22:14:43 GMT
Judged FALSE by Murphy: 12 May 2013 22:31:00 GMT
The only reason I can think of that this would fail is if being a Golem or not
being a Golem is a substantive aspect of the Rule. I'm torn as to whether or
not this is the case. On the one hand, it does change the way that the Rule
would work, but on the other hand, it does not actually alter the way that the
Rule functions; it only alters the way that other Rules apply to it---and
certainly, affecting how rules interact is not a direct aspect of power
security, or else Agoran satisfaction would not work. Therefore, I submit that
since golem-ness is not, directly, a part of the functioning of a Rule, it
should not be considered a substantive aspect, and Rule 2361 is a Slave Golem.
I cause Rule 2380 to cause Rule 2361 to become a Slave Golem.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
this fails due to rule 2150; a rule needs power at least 2 to
define an entity as a person. Defining a rule as a golem is defining it
to be a person, among other things.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
As I mentioned on IRC, clearly if a high-powered rule
states that, say, Friendly nomics are persons, a lower-powered rule
flipping a nomic to Friendly would not be defining it to be a person.
Although I'm not sure whether "Golem-ness" can be changed like a
switch, without any persistent rule enforcing the definition, in the
first place, if it can, I don't see an essential difference that would
affect whether or not the higher-powered rule is providing the agency
for the definition.
Judge Walker's Arguments:
I accept the caller and omd's arguments. TRUE.
Appellant woggle's Arguments:
This decision would eviscerate Rule 2140 (Power Controls
Mutability). Plainly making something subject to a large number of obligations
and automatic destruction under the rules is modifying a "substantive" aspect
of it for the purposes of the Agoran Game State. Moreover, the plain language
of R2140 does not restrict its operation to aspects related to operation as a
entities which require non-zero power, like Adopted Proposals and Rules, but
applies even if the instrument's Power is unrelated to its operation.
Appellant scshunt's Arguments:
I support and do so only for the reason that there is no existing appeal.
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
Causing a rule to become a Slave Golem would modify that rule, and
would not fit within the mechanism of Rule 105 (Power=3), so Rule 105
prevents it from occurring. FALSE.