Index ← 3901 CFJ 3902 3903 → text
===============================  CFJ 3902  ===============================

      Revision 0 of Rule 2029 contains the text "by G., Steve, Murphy,
      root".

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

Caller:                        G.

Judge:                         Murphy
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by G.:                                     19 Mar 2021 22:12:09
Assigned to Murphy:                               25 Mar 2021 19:31:09
Judged FALSE by Murphy:                           28 Mar 2021 18:13:44

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

Caller's Arguments:

R2029/0 as initially adopted (in 2002) included the text "by Goethe,
Steve, Murphy, root".  In 2017, a search/replace of the history section
erroneously replaced "Goethe" with "G." in subsequent published copies.

In the 24 Feb 2019 SLR publication, the rule appeared as follows:

> Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
> Town Fountain
>
>                        /\   /\
>                        / \ / \
>                           T
>                          his
>                        Power-04
>                 Rule (the first ever)
>                  was placed to honor
>             The Agoran  Spirit Of The Game
>             by G., Steve, Murphy, root
>             and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
>             on our works, ye Marvy, but do
>        always Dance a Powerful Dance.  Hail Eris!

Proposal 8175 (adopted 08 May 2019) ratified the 24 Feb 2019 SLR using
this text:

> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 24th of February,
> 2019, available here [1].
>
> [1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012797.html

Assuming the ratification changed the text itself (from "Goethe" to "G.")
there are at least two possibilities for revision number:

1.  The ratification ratified that the original 2029/0 has the new text.

2.  The ratification changed the rule text, and that incremented the
revision number, leaving 2029/0 as containing "Goethe", and 2029/1
containing "G."

Gratuitous addition:

3.  A third possibility is more worrying. If any change of text results in
a new revision number (by common definition), then an attempt to change
rules text via ratification of an SLR (with revision numbers) would fail
as per R1551, as it would "add inconsistencies between the gamestate and
the rules". This would mean that any time a ratification would have
actually changed rules text, it instead failed, leaving the current SLR
state rather uncertain.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:


Abstractly, the situation is as follows:

   * Just before time T, rule R had body B0 and revision number R0.

   * Document D alleges that, at time T, rule R had body B1 and revision
     number R1.

   * At time T+Y, document D is ratified.

Past interpretation has been in line with possibility #2. But were we
wrong all along about that?

Relevant clauses from Rule 1551:

       When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified,
       rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified
       to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was
       published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the
       ratified document as true and accurate as possible; ...

                                        ... If no such modification is
       possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible
       modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification
       fails.

Within the evaluation of this hypothetical, the ratified document need
not be /completely/ true, just "as true and accurate as possible". Past
practice thus amounts to implicitly interpreting this as "as true and
accurate as possible without violating the subsequent restrictions":

   * Within the evaluation of this hypothetical, at time T, rule R had
     body B1, even if its revision number was still R0.

   * Thus, at time T+Y, rule R comes to have body B1, and revision
     number (whatever it was just before time T+Y) + 1.

In the interest of avoiding possibility #3, I find this interpretation
reasonable, and judge FALSE; this ratification did not retroactively
change the text of revision number 0, instead it created a new revision
number 1. That said, it's enough of a stretch to warrant legislative
clarification (proto coming up shortly).

Judge's evidence:

Here are all changes to still-existing rules attributed to "SLR
ratification" in the most recent FLR.

Rule 105/22 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
Amended(9) by SLR ratification, 01 May 2014
which was done by Proposal 7638:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2014-May/010672.html

Rule 2154/59 (Power=2)
Election Procedure
Amended(15) by SLR ratification, 24 Sep 2008
which was done without objection:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013874.html

Rule 1551/21 (Power=3.2)
Ratification
Power changed from 3.1 to 3 by SLR ratification, 02 Jan 2011
which was done by Proposal 6938 (after explicitly changing its current 
text):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2011-January.txt.gz

Rule 1367/25 (Power=2)
Degrees
Amended(16) by SLR ratification, 27 Aug 2010
which was done by Proposal 6806:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2010-August/008036.html

Rule 1769/15 (Power=3)
Holidays
Amended(9) by SLR ratification, 27 Aug 2010
which was also done by Proposal 6806

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