=============================== CFJ 3853 ===============================
Within the past week, Jason committed the crime of Uncertain
Barred: R. Lee
Called by Jason: 19 Jun 2020 14:03:14
Assigned to nch: 20 Jun 2020 00:26:56
Judged TRUE by nch: 20 Jun 2020 14:37:28
Alleged criminal action :
> I certify the above proposal as a patch (please don't sue).
> Justification: this is a bug, because it clearly does not match
> legislative intent (which was discussed on the archives at the time of
> P8346; also, I'm the author of P8346 and I affirm that it does not match
> intent, as much as I want this bug to work), which relates to the office
> of the Rulekeepor, which I hold. It relates to the office of the
> Rulekeepor because the bug is in a rule, and the Rulekeepor keeps the
> rules, thus any problem in the rules "plausibly affects the area of the
> game" that Rulekeepor is responsible for (i.e. the rules). It is
> obviously a minimal rectification of the issue.
Finger pointing by R. Lee :
> Hey nerd, a proposal is only a patch if
> A player SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function is
> to minimally rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity (a problem) that
> relates to a) an office e holds; or b) a CFJ, open within the last
> week, of which e is the judge.
> You don't hold the office of Tailor and you haven't judged a CFJ. I
> point a very pointed finger at Jason for committing the Class-4 Crime
> of Uncertain Certification.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
The rulekeepor's area of the game is tracking rules text, regardless of
contents (unless the text pertains to methods of performing that actual
tracking). There is no "problem" for the rulekeepor here that impacts the
job of tracking the text of the rules, the text under consideration can be
tracked equally well by the rulekeepor and in the same manner regardless
of what its contents mean, so the bug itself does not "relate to" the
office of rulekeepor.
Judge nch's Arguments:
The rule in question is R2626, "Certifiable Patches". The caller's
arguments , and the arguments of the finger-pointing that lead to the
CFJ, rely primarily on the following clause:
5. A problem relates to an office if it plausibly affects the area
of the game the office is responsible for and relates to a CFJ
if it could plausibly be interpreted to affect that CFJ's
First, several gratuitous arguments [1,2,3] were made about the meaning
of the word 'plausible'. The most convincing argument to me was
plausible means something akin to "there is a colorable argument
that it is true". if you are convinced that there is a reasonable
argument that it's related to the Rulekeepor's duties, that's
probably enough. However, mere ambiguity or unsureness isn't.
Note that R2626 does not say the patch should relate to the office, or
the office's duties. It says it should affect "the area of the game the
office is responsible for". R1051, the Rulekeepor, gives us a definition
of what the Rulekeepor is responsible for. In full it reads:
The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for
maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.
The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset.
The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.
Let's review Jason's arguments for the patch certification:
I certify the above proposal as a patch (please don't sue).
Justification: this is a bug, because it clearly does not match
legislative intent (which was discussed on the archives at the
time of P8346; also, I'm the author of P8346 and I affirm that it
does not match intent, as much as I want this bug to work), which
relates to the office of the Rulekeepor, which I hold. It relates
to the office of the Rulekeepor because the bug is in a rule, and
the Rulekeepor keeps the rules, thus any problem in the rules
"plausibly affects the area of the game" that Rulekeepor is
responsible for (i.e. the rules). It is obviously a minimal
rectification of the issue.
Jason asserts that the Rulekeepor is responsible for "the rules", with
the implicit assertion that e is responsible for the meaning of the
rules. But R1051 says "the *text* of the rules", which pretty clearly
excludes their meaning. This bug does not impact the Rulekeepor's
responsibility to maintain the text of the rules, and is therefore not
plausibly related to the office.
Also note a gratuitous argument  submitted at the time the CFJ was
called which uses similar reasoning to arrive at a similar conclusion.