Index ← 3821 CFJ 3822 3823 → text
===============================  CFJ 3822  ===============================

      CFJ 7 is an open CFJ with Jason as its judge.

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

Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         Aris
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     19 Mar 2020 23:23:13
Assigned to Aris:                                 19 Mar 2020 23:23:13
Judged TRUE by Aris:                              26 Mar 2020 19:51:17
Motion to reconsider filed:                       26 Mar 2020 19:51:17
Judged TRUE by Aris:                              30 Mar 2020 04:11:24

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

Caller's Evidence:

On March 19, 2020, I (as Arbitor) announced the following:
>
> I recuse the judge of CFJ 7 from CFJ 7 (note: this may do nothing).
> I assign CFJ 7 to Jason.
>
> ================================  CFJ 7  ===============================
>
>     Because of Rule 111, Rule 112 takes precedence over Rule 219.
>     Therefore, Rule 219 has no legal force.
>
> ========================================================================
Followed by written-in-2020 gratuitous arguments by G. as found here: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?7


Caller's Arguments:

Before detailed arguments, I respectfully request that the judge use a 
“preponderance of evidence” standard to decide between TRUE and FALSE for 
this case.  It would be trivially simple to decide this case is 
indeterminate based on a lack of full historical archives.  Instead, I 
sincerely hope that the judge is willing to accept the existing historical 
documents (i.e. Zefram’s old rulesets, and the CotC archives) as 
documentary evidence that meets this standard, unless there are direct 
contradictions between documents.  For these arguments, I will use the 
term “likely” as shorthand for facts that the documentary evidence 
supports and for which I found no contradictory documents.  

Around March 1 2020, the full text case log for CFJ 7 from the CotC 
archives appeared as follows:

> Call for Judgement from Wes (Thu Aug  5 22:26:27 GMT 1993)
>
>   "Because of Rule 111, Rule 112 takes precedence over Rule
> 219. Therefore, Rule 219 has no legal force."
>
> { This CFJ was never judged.}
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExA.txt

The parenthetical {} comment is interesting.  Similarly-delimited {} 
comments appear in several cases in the early CFJ history, and all such 
comments supply historical context that would be known only after the case 
was called (e.g. CFJ 28 {} comments document the full history of that 
case).  The current CotC (G.) inherited these case logs from omd, who 
inherited them from Murphy.  Murphy (pers. comm.) recalled that e 
inherited these cases from Taral.  Murphy also noted that some of these 
represented after-the-events attempts (possibly long after), by an unknown 
editor, to reconstruct original history.  I suggest that the editor had 
access to archives of the original mailing list (i.e. to reconstruct CFJ 
28 history) and performed reasonable due diligence in research before 
making these annotations.  Therefore, it is likely that the indicated 
statement was called for judgement by Wes on August 5 1993, and that it 
was never judged.  

We don’t know the exact ruleset on August 5, 1993.  However, Zefram’s 
archives have two ruleset versions that bracket this time reasonably 
closely:

Initial ruleset, dated June 30, 1993
Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/chuck0_nr_19930630.txt
In evidence as:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExB.txt
 
Ruleset dated August 28, 1993
Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/usenet0_nr_19930828.txt 
In evidence as: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExC.txt

I assume these rulesets are likely accurate for the indicated dates, and 
for rules quoted in the below arguments I cross-checked to see if there 
were changes between the two dates.  The initial and 28-Aug-1993 rulesets 
differed in capitalization of key terms, with the later version 
capitalizing many terms such as Players and Statement throughout.  There 
were no other changes in the rules quoted below - I quote the initial 
(uncapitalized) versions.

Mutable rule 213 read:
      If players disagree about the legality of a move or the
      interpretation or application of a rule, then a player may invoke
      judgement by submitting a statement for judgement to the Speaker.
      Disagreement, for the purposes of this rule, may be created by the
      insistence of any player.  When judgement is invoked, the Speaker
      must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules.
      The Speaker must then distribute the statement to be judged, along
      with the identity of the Judge, to all players.

In the original R213, “Invoking judgement” is done by “submitting a 
statement for judgement”.  Requests (i.e. calls) for dispute resolution 
are tied to the submission of a single statement, with the intent that the 
statement is “for judgement”.  Further, it ties the selection of a Judge 
to a particular statement.  

If we ignore the all intervening history for the moment, it can be seen 
that the initial rules for judgement were/are essentially synonymous with 
the current R991/31 (In evidence as: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExD.txt).
In R991/31, judgement is initiated (synonymous with the old “invoked”) 
with the announcement of a single statement, and that statement is tied to 
the selection of a judge.  I posit that these endpoints (again, setting 
aside intervening history) are sufficient such that the original 
definition matches the current one within the bounds of the current 
R1586/9 (Definition and Continuity of Entities), to the extent that these 
concepts are “the same” in the initial and current rulesets (including 
concepts like statement, judge, caller, etc.).  Further, current 
definitions such as “open” would continue to apply to old cases.

In the current ruleset, we know from CFJ 3488
(https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3488)
that judgeship is sticky - you need to be an eligible player to be 
assigned, but once assigned, registration status doesn’t matter and you 
are the judge whether or not you are a player.  An examination of the 
original judgement rules (213-217) shows the same situation - judges only 
change when the officer in charge changes them.

Additionally, if CFJ 7 had a judge assigned at some point in history, and 
was never assigned a judgement, and that person was never explicitly 
removed as a judge, it should be POSSIBLE for the current Arbitor to 
recuse em.  The current R2492/4 reads in part:

>     The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that
>     judge has violated a time limit for judging the case and has not
>     judged it in the mean time; the Arbitor SHALL do so in a timely
>     fashion after the time limit expires, if able.

At the time CFJ 7 was called, R215 read:
>     After the Speaker has distributed the statement to be judged and the
>     identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a
>     legal judgement.

Therefore, there was a time limit back then, and if a judge was assigned, 
it is likely that the judge violated the original time limit, which would 
allow the current recusal rule to function such that the Arbitor CAN 
currently recuse em.  (A second possibility is that the original judge is 
indeterminate, which under the current switch rules would result in the 
judge being “unassigned” - so ability to recuse would be irrelevant).  

It’s also important to note that the “Arbitor SHALL [recuse]” in R2492 is 
a “SHALL in a timely fashion after the time limit expires”. This SHALL is 
tied to an Office and a SHALL that didn’t exist when the original time 
limit expired, so there is no REQUIREMENT for the Arbitor to act to 
perform recusals on ancient cases.  So e CAN recuse an ancient judge who 
has not judged, but NEED NOT do so (if e *does* recuse someone to make the 
case clearly unassigned, R991 does require that e assign a new judge).

So the start and end points are consistent with CFJ 7 being a currently-
open CFJ, that (one way or the other) was unassigned after the Arbitor 
recused the previous judge, and thus a new judge could be assigned to it.  
The remaining question is: did anything in the intervening 26+ year 
history of Agora inject a discontinuity that “destroyed” CFJ 7?

First off: I admit this could never be 100% answered.  There is always the 
possibility that a statement like {“There are no Open CFJs”} was ratified 
at some point to fix a game bug or something.  However, given no explicit 
memory of such an event, I’ve reviewed the history of the judgement rules 
to determine if continuity is reasonably likely.  Starting with the 
historical annotations of R991/31 as a reference, I used Zefram’s ruleset 
history:
Original: http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt 
In evidence as: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/7_ExE.txt

for amendments 1-7 (through 2002) and for later amendments, found each 
proposal resolution to include proposal actions as well as rule texts in 
the analysis.  

Starting with the original R213 text above, the changes from the 
historical annotations on R991 were:

Amended(1) by P407 (Alexx), 03 Sep 1993
  Changed the judge selection job from Speaker to Clerk of the Courts, 
  no impact on the existence of CFJs or judges.

Amended by P991 'Ultimate Reward for Achievement of Goal' (Fnord.), ~12 
Aug 1994
  Adds the following text:  “No Player shall submit more than five 
  CFJ's per week.”  This is an important piece of evidence.  It used the 
  term “CFJ” without further explanation, while the main body of the rule 
  still talked about “submitting a statement for judgement.”  This
  indicates that the term CFJ was synonymous with “submitting a statement
  for judgement” rather than being a separate or new concept.

Amended(2) by R750, around 12 Aug 1994
Infected and amended(3) by R1454, 23 Oct 1995
Amended(4) by P2042, 11 Dec 1995
  Amendments 2-4 were minor/not relevant.

Amended(5) by P2457, 16 Feb 1996
  Makes “Call for Judgement” the leading term instead of “invoking 
  judgement”.  Since the two terms were used simultaneously following the 
  P991 amendment above, this is not a discontinuity.  For reference, the 
  full text of 991/5 is:
      Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining
      to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a
      Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts.  For the purpose
      of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement
      shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute.

      Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is
      clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement.

      The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement,
      along with any additional material submitted by the Caller
      (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not
      later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge
      assigned to Judge it.

Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by P2669, 19 Sep 1996 
    Power change only.

At this point in history (1998) another rule is created that is relevant - 
Rule 1868.  It reads in part:
     Once assigned as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the
     Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from that CFJ, or e ceases
     to be a Player.

Here, explicitly, ceasing to be a player removes a judge automatically 
(this wouldn’t affect the existence of the CFJ, just the judge).  However, 
it’s not clear what this would have done if the judge of CFJ 7 had ceased 
to be a player *before* the rule took effect.  

In 2001, this text became:
     Once selected as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the
     Judge of that CFJ until e is Recused from that CFJ or becomes
     ineligible to Judge that particular CFJ.
(which included methods other than deregistration, such as zombification, 
that could make a person ineligible).  

In 2007, recusal stopped being automatic:
     Whenever a CFJ that has not been judged has no trial judge
     assigned, the Clerk of the Courts shall as soon as possible
     assign an eligible judge to it by announcement.  The assigned
     judge remains its trial judge until recused.

But the point remains that the judge of CFJ 7 may have been “auto-removed” 
between 1998 and 2007.

Back to Rule 991 amendments:

Amended(6) by P4170 'Justiciar Opinon' (Elysion), 26 Jun 2001
    Added the justiciar option, no effect on continuity.

Amended(7) by P4298 'Massive Judicial Reform' (Murphy), 17 May 2002
  Major rewording/restructuring, but fundamental definitions remained 
  intact:
      Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining
      to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the
      Clerk of the Courts.  The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof
      of the existence of such a dispute.

      A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth
      or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming
      perfect knowledge.  A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,
      Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,
      but not required, to take notice of these things.

      The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along
      with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including
      but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the
      time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to
      that CFJ.

Amended(8) by P4867 'Judicial Reform 2.0' (G.), 27 Aug 2006
  This created a subclass of CFJ called “civil” CFJs that were designed to 
  adjudicate contracts.  However, these were a subclass of general CFJs 
  which kept a consistent definition with the past, the resulting R991 
  was:
       Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining
       to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the
       Clerk of the Courts.  The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof
       of the existence of such a dispute.

       A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth
       or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming
       perfect knowledge.  A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments,
       Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged,
       but not required, to take notice of these things.

Amended(9) by P5015 'CFJ by announcement' (Zefram), 24 Jun 2007
  Changed the longstanding “submit to the CotC” method to by 
  announcement.

Retitled by P5086 'judicial reform' (Zefram), 01 Aug 2007
Amended(10) by P5086 'judicial reform' (Zefram), 01 Aug 2007
  Proposal 5086 was a major change in definitions that created “inquiry 
  cases” (the traditional kind) and “equity cases” and removed the general 
  CFJ definition.  The proposal (resolved here: 
  https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
official/2007-August/003161.html)
  had a specific and detailed continuity method, including the following 
  text:
   * Each pre-reform CFJ continues to exist as a post-reform inquiry
       case.
   * Each pre-reform CFJ with a judge assigned has the same judge
       assigned in its post-reform form.
   * Each pre-reform CFJ with no judge assigned has no judge assigned in
       its post-reform form.

  My reading of these clauses is that they successfully transitioned pre-
  reform “CFJs” to post-reform “inquiry cases” without loss of continuity.

Amended(11) by P5110 'Regulate ID numbers' (Murphy), 02 Aug 2007
  Made ID numbers more official - no effect on continuity.

Amended(12) by P5317 'Judicial fixes' (Murphy), 28 Nov 2007
  Clarified the hierarchy of types of judgements by making this the first 
  paragraph of R991:
      A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a
       procedure to settle a matter of controversy.  There are
       subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by
       other rules.  Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined
       by the rules.
  The “inquiry” subclass remained continuous with the past.

Amended(13) by P5464 'Secure more judicial aspects' (Murphy), 13 Mar 2008
Assigned to the Committee on the Judiciary by P6053 'Committees'
   (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 Jan 2009
Amended(14) by P7050 'No more warp drive' (omd), 16 May 2011

  None of these affected basic definitions or continuity.  

Retitled by P7616 'Mostly Simple Judging v2.3' (G.), 16 Jan 2014
Amended(15) by P7616 'Mostly Simple Judging v2.3' (G.), 16 Jan 2014
  Vastly simplified the Judicial system.  Converged the different types of 
  cases (while being explicit about synonyms for continuity).  Resulting 
  Rule:
      Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
      (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a statement
      to be inquired into.  E may optionally bar one person from the
      case.

      At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), or has exactly one
      judgement.

      When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Speaker CAN assign any
      player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
      week.  The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
      players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).  The
      Speaker SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested
      players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.

 
Amended(16) by P7629 'Do Things' (Alexis), 07 Apr 2014
  Created the Arbitor office.

Amended(17) by P7647 'formatting/misc fixes' (omd), 03 Jun 2014
Amended(18) by P7777 'Simplified moot fix' (omd), 14 Aug 2015
Amended(19) by P7803 'Self-service judiciary' (G.), 31 Jul 2016
Amended(20) by P7867 'Economics Overhaul v2' (nch, o, grok, Aris), 30
   Jul 2017
Amended(21) by P7876 'Float On' (o), 26 Sep 2017
Amended(22) by P7888 'BILLY MAYS HERE' (o, R. Lee), 26 Sep 2017
Amended(23) by P7899 'Arbitor's Union' (G.), 03 Oct 2017
Amended(24) by P8004 'Rusty' (G.), 30 Jan 2018
Amended(25) by P8005 'Hopefully routine fixes' (Murphy), 06 Feb 2018
Amended(26) by P8014 'Putting Agora on a Map v7' (Trigon, Aris, ATMunn,
   G., o, R. Lee), 24 Feb 2018
Amended(27) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018
Amended(28) by P8065 'No undead courts' (twg), 18 Jul 2018
Amended(29) by cleaning (Trigon), 31 Oct 2018
  All of Amendments 17-29 were minor (or side-things like adding and 
  removing economics) that didn’t affect continuity and without any side-
  effects from Proposals.

Amended(30) by P8134 'The judge switch' (G.), 02 Dec 2018
  Turned Judge into a CFJ switch.  Importantly, the proposal included a 
  continuity clause:
      For every CFJ that was assigned to a judge immediately before this
      proposal took effect, that CFJ's judge switch is flipped to that
      judge.

Amended(31) by P8221 'Usage de-capitalization' (Jason Cobb, Aris), 05
   Sep 2019
  Decapitalized all the stuff.

I hope this thorough review is sufficient evidence to prove the truth of 
the current CFJ’s statement - that CFJ 7 has existed continuously as a CFJ 
(on occasion called an inquiry case), is very likely (to the preponderance 
of evidence) existing, open, that it either had no judge or the judge was 
successfully recused by Arbitor G., and as such, CFJ 7 has recently been 
assigned to Jason.

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

Judge Aris's Arguments:

The caller's arguments are extremely persuasive. They unquestionably
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that CFJ 7 remains open,
that its decision was delinquent, so that the Arbitor could recuse the
judge if there was one, and that even if the judge were indeterminate,
that would result in the case nevertheless being open for assignment.
All of this counsels in favor of a judgement of TRUE.

However, I think the caller has not sufficiently shown why this case
should be judged on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence
standard, rather than by judging DISMISS. A verdict of DISMISS is
appropriate "if insufficient information exists to make a judgement
with reasonable effort" (R591), and there is a strong argument to be
made that insufficient evidence exists in this case, given the holes
in the historical record.

Nevertheless, I do not judge this case DISMISS, because
extraordinarily strong public policy grounds support judging this case
on a preponderance of the evidence standard. Specifically, this course
of action is justified by the vast emphasis Agorans place on the
integrity of the historical record. In an influential essay, nch
argued that Agora's main product is our story [1]. Indeed, many
players join Agora, rather than another nomic, because of our vast
history. Additionally, the caller's arguments show the remarkable
effort that has been exerted to maintain the integrity of judicial
cases over time; whenever the rules governing them have been amended,
Agorans have taken the greatest care to preserve old judgements.

Given all of the emphasis we've placed on preserving our history,
judging this case DISMISS merely because of the slight chance that
there was some change that was missed would be an admission of defeat.
It would be an admission that despite the efforts we've taken to
preserve our records of the past, we could nevertheless not trust
them. This is not how we play Agora. We play on the assumption that
the records of the past are true, unless there is some special reason
to doubt their validity. If we cannot find any intermediate evidence
invalidating past evidence about the state of the game, and there is
no particular reason to expect that changes have happened in the
meantime, we will continue on the assumption that the state of affairs
remains the same until it is proven wrong, thus preserving the chain
of time linking us to our past.

Accordingly, I rule now that it has been sufficiently proven that the
case was open, as stated in the ancient records brought forth before
the court by the caller, and that since the deadline for assigning a
judgement was long delinquent, the Arbitor properly had authority to
recuse the judge, if any, and to assign Jason in eir place. TRUE.

[1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
discussion/2016-July/041045.html

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