============================== CFJ 3306 ==============================
scshunt satisfies the Victory Condition of Junta due to Rule 2380
Called by Bucky: 17 Apr 2013 20:03:32 GMT
Assigned to omd: 20 Apr 2013 22:22:36 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd: 29 Apr 2013 19:19:03 GMT
I can't figure out how scshunt changed the text of Rule 2380 outright with
Agoran Consent, rather than causing some rule to amend Rule 2380. (the lack
of a reasonably up-to-date published ruleset is not helping)
From: Sean Hunt
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: BUS: one last thing
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Sean Hunt
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2380 to read "scshunt
satisfies the Victory Condition of Junta. When scshunt wins Agora, this rule
I do so, having received support from Machiavelli, G., and Roujo, and no
Victory Announcement: Rule 2380 specifies that I satisfy the Victory Condition
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Rule 2380 (before the change):
scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a
specified Rule Change. scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause a
proposal to take effect. scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause
this Rule to perform an arbitrary change to the gamestate.
Rule 2288 (relevant excerpt):
If a person CAN perform an action by announcement, e CAN perform
it ... with N Agoran Consent ... N is a number appropriate ...
Gratuitous Arguments by Roujo:
Yes, Rule 2380 could have changed itself, but that would have read
something like "I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2380 to
change the text of Rule 2380 to [...]." or "I intend, with Agoran
Consent, to cause Rule 2380 to cause Rule 2380 to read [...].". The
way he said it, it seems that he caused Rule 2380 to change without
specifying how, which implies that he was doing it himself, which I
think would fail due to insufficient power.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
CFJ 2887 (which I think supports your point here).
Judge omd's Arguments:
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:46 AM, Sean Hunt
> It has generally been taken that where exactly one mechanism exists to
> do something, and that mechanism is initiated by announcement, then we
> can shorthand the end result as always occurring via that mechanism.
> Since there exists only one mechanism by which I can indirectly cause
> a Rule Change by announcement, I used that mechanism and caused Rule
> 2380 to amend itself.
This argument is, indeed, the line of reasoning I was thinking of, and
it's certainly a possibility - the intent is clear, and that counts
for a lot. In CFJ 2274, I argued that root's attempt to make a
proposal democratic was ineffective at making the *decision to adopt
it* democratic, but it was ruled that there was no ambiguity in
meaning. In that case, however:
(a) Democratic-ness of proposals was not separately defined, though it
had been previously (and is now), so 'making a proposal democratic'
was ill-defined if taken literally. In this case, the action scshunt
attempted to take was generally well-defined but impossible for em,
albeit fairly similar to one e could have taken. Although the
difference doesn't inherently cause ambiguity - players can apply
gloss to obviously impossible actions just as easily as ill-defined
ones - it does increase the risk of it, as someone could assume that
the action takes place as specified without checking whether it's
possible. Even though the effect of such a misinterpretation is
lessened in this case because the general effects of the action
scshunt meant to take and the one e wrote are the same, it's still a
misinterpretation, and the potential for confusion is increased in the
world of scams where many otherwise impossible things can become
(b) The judge in that case argued that it had been common usage,
including in some rules, to generally equate doing things to proposals
with doing things to the decisions to adopt them. In this case, when
causing rules to amend things, we've always been strict about the
wording; that doesn't necessarily mean that incorrect wording isn't
permissible, but it means that there's no specific game custom to
weigh in favor of allowing it.
Considering these differences and our general tradition of being
somewhat more strict with the wording of scam actions (though the
action in CFJ 2274 was a /counter-scam/), I judge FALSE.
If you disagree with this judgement, please appeal rather than moving
to reconsider, as I'd rather have a second opinion.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Oh, short addendum: that confusion by reasonable players is possible
in this case is demonstrated by the caller's arguments themselves.