Index ← 3765 CFJ 3766 3767 → text
===============================  CFJ 3766  ===============================

      Rule 1698 (Ossification) is in effect.

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

Caller:                        D. Margaux

Judge:                         Jason Cobb
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by D. Margaux:                             31 Jul 2019 20:42:59
Assigned to Jason Cobb:                           03 Aug 2019 00:13:32
Judged TRUE by Jason Cobb:                        03 Aug 2019 16:11:58
Motion to Reconsider self-filed:                  09 Aug 2019 00:01:43
Judged TRUE by Jason Cobb:                        09 Aug 2019 00:01:43

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

Caller's Arguments:

Under Rule 1698, "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable 
combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be 
made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period."

I can prove that "arbitrary rule changes" are IMPOSSIBLE by identifying a 
proposed rule change that would be IMPOSSIBLE to adopt within the four 
week period.

There are many rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt. Here is one 
example of an IMPOSSIBLE rule change: "Enact a power 100 Rule that 
provides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary 
notwithstanding.' Leave the Ruleset otherwise unchanged." That rule change 
CANNOT take effect because the Ossification rule itself would prevent that 
rule change from taking effect.

Another rule IMPOSSIBLE rule change is: "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). 
Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the 
Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" That rule change CANNOT go 
into effect, because it is an "inseperable group of changes to the 
gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified," and is thus prevented 
from going into effect by Rule 1698 itself.

I have established that, if Rule 1698 took effect, then Agora is ossified. 
Here's where it gets confusing. If I am right, then Rule 1698 may have 
prevented itself from taking effect!  That is because enacting Rule 1698 
changes the game state in a manner that ossifies Agora, and "If any other 
single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause 
Agora to become ossified . . . it is cancelled and does not occur, rules 
to the contrary notwithstanding."

That means that the enactment of Rule 1698 was "canceled and does not 
occur."

It also means that, when the ruleset was ratified with Rule 1698 in it, 
that action was “canceled and does not occur.”

BUT! The only thing that cancels the enactment of the rule is the rule 
itself! So, Rule 1698 cycles infinitely between cancelling itself and not 
being cancelled.

I think that makes one or both of these CFJs PARADOXICAL. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 1698
Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of 
actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or 
arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. If, but for 
this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become 
ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, 
rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change or 
inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become 
ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does 
not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Jason Cobb's Arguments:

As best I can determine, this is the original text of Rule 1698 [0]:

>       It must always be possible to adopt Proposals within a 4 week
>       period. Any change to the game state which would result in
>       this condition becoming false is cancelled and does not take
>       place, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.

I find no reason to believe that this Rule was enacted improperly. Even if 
it was improperly enacted, it likely has been ratified into existence at 
some point during its 11-year period with this text, given the practice of 
periodically ratifying the ruleset.

The current FLR does not show any irregularities in Rule 1698's historical 
annotations.

It appears to be that the ruleset at the time at which this rule was 
enacted would permit adopting Proposals (especially given that there must 
have been a proposal to enact Rule 1698 itself), so the caller's arguments 
would not apply to the original enactment.

Even if the caller's arguments are correct that the current text of the 
Rule would be IMPOSSIBLE (or PARADOXICAL) to enact or ratify, that would 
not stop the original Rule from being enacted its original text.

I see no reasons to believe that this Rule does not exist. Furthermore, I 
see no reasons to believe that this Rule is not in effect, as it is not 
listed as having ever been repealed in the FLR.

Also, I note to the caller that Rule 1698's title is not, nor has it ever 
been, "Ossification", it was originally "The Proposal System is Protected" 
and is currently "Agora Is A Nomic".

Rule 1698 is in effect. TRUE.

[0]: Available in Zefram's archive at http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/

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