Index ← 3827 CFJ 3828 3829 → text
===============================  CFJ 3828  ===============================

      A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the
      number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.

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

Caller:                        R. Lee

Judge:                         G.
Judgement:                     PARADOXICAL

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

History:

Called by R. Lee:                                 09 Apr 2020 01:02:40
Assigned to Alexis:                               18 Apr 2020 16:05:59
Alexis recuses emself:                            18 Apr 2020 18:16:53
Assigned to G.:                                   25 Apr 2020 19:48:12
Judged PARADOXICAL by G.:                         26 Apr 2020 08:25:08

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

Caller's Evidence:

Here is the text of the rule. The current SLR doesn't list it (i assume 
the author of the SLR thought it repealed itself), so the rule doesn't 
have a number.
"  When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
      author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
      coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
      rule repeals itself. "

Here is the text of the proposal that enacted the said rule, numbered 
8363, AI 1, author Warrigal

"Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
  {
      When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
      author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
      coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
      rule repeals itself.
  } "


Caller's Arguments:

The rule clearly gives a player other than warrigal one coin. A is clearly 
singular in this context. Rules should be carried out when they can so 
this rule should be given effect. R. Lee is a player. If this CFJ were 
judged TRUE and R. Lee were held to be given the coin, the rule would be 
satisfied. There is no other way to distinguish who, specifically, has the 
coin, so why not give it to R. Lee?

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Warrigal:

Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" states:

      When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
      takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
      unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
      judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.

I believe the traditional interpretation of this is that the text of
the rules must be adhered to, no matter how ridiculous that text may
be, with inconsistencies in the rules being the sole exception.

Another possible interpretation is that the rules being "silent or
unclear" may be sufficient cause to set a rule aside in favor of "game
custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best
interests of the game", but I don't believe Rule 217 has ever been
interpreted that way before, so we shouldn't start interpreting Rule
217 that way now without a particularly good reason.

The text of the rule enacted by Proposal 8363 "Somebody gets a coin" is:

      When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
      author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
      coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
      rule repeals itself.

Since this text is in no way inconsistent (although it is "silent" and
"unclear" as to who was awarded the coin), I think it is clear that we
are required to implement the rule as written. Therefore, a player
did, in fact, earn 1 coin, and we now must determine who.

Rule 217 instructs us to make this determination "by game custom,
common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests
of the game." The only relevant game custom I'm aware of is that in
the event of ambiguity, the officer responsible for reporting the
affected information may make a ruling, and that ruling stands in the
absence of a particular reason to the contrary.

Therefore, the Treasuror should decide who received the coin, and we
should accept eir determination in the absence of a particular reason
why someone else should have received the coin.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

This court agrees that we must adhere to the text of the rule "A Coin
Award" for the time that it was a rule:

      When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
      author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
      coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
      rule repeals itself.

The court also agrees that, upon the enactment of that rule, a coin was
created in the possession of a player, as per the definition of 'earn' in
R2577/2:

      For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in
      that entity's possession.

And just for good measure, the rules grant themselves explicit general
authority to create coins, as per R2166/28:

                             An asset's backing document can generally
      specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
      transferred.

Therefore, in the words of "A Coin Award", a player did indeed earn a coin
"this way" and the rule repealed itself.

In a more practical jurisdiction than Agora, a judge might say "ah,
looking at R2576/0, each asset has exactly one owner.  The rule that
created the coin listed a subset of possible owners, therefore we merely
decide on someone in that set.  Or maybe defer to the Officer to make the
decision."

However, Agora also has Rule 2518/0:
>      If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
>      paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
>      alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
>      considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.

This implies that, if insufficient information exists to determine the
owner of an existing coin, a judge's task is not to pick an arbitrary
method for determining the value, but simply to determine that the value
is indeterminate, and see if that leads to an appropriate result.

First, for posterity, it's worth noting that after this CFJ was called,
P8366 'Asset Determinacy' was adopted (17 Apr 2020), changing part of
R2576's text from:
      If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
      and Found Department.
to:
      If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its ownership
      would otherwise be indeterminate, it is owned by the Lost and
      Found Department.

Therefore, upon that change taking effect, the coin in question was
transferred to the Lost and Found Department, where I believe it resides 
now.

However, at the time this CFJ was called, the coin belonged to an
indeterminate player, so that is the basis of this judgement.  Taking the
wording of the CFJ statement:

      A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the
      number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.

We have determined that the rule was enacted, and the rule repealed
itself.  However, it is indeterminate whether R. Lee's coin totals were
increased.  Looking at the judgement options in R591/46:

>      * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
>        undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
>        logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
>        is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
>        arises from the case itself or in reference to it.

If the owner of the coin is indeterminate, then it is logically
irresovable whether R. Lee's coin totals were changed.  It is not
IRRELEVANT (at the time it was called), as it directly affects the
Treasuror's records, nor does the undecidability arise from the case
itself or in reference to it.  Further, the other possible option, DISMISS
(because insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
reasonable effort) explicitly excludes itself from consideration if
PARADOXICAL is appropriate.

Therefore, this court finds PARADOXICAL.

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