Index ← 3938 CFJ 3939 3940 → text
===============================  CFJ 3939  ===============================

      My attempt to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule "The Device" above
      succeeded.

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

Caller:                        ais523

Judge:                         R. Lee
Judgement:                     TRUE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                                 31 Dec 2021 03:06:46
Assigned to R. Lee:                               10 Jan 2022 18:00:00
Judged TRUE by R. Lee:                            13 Jan 2022 01:00:00

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

Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 20:11 +0000, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 20:09 +0000, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> > The Device is on.
> >
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> > "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
> > device is on:" list:
> > {{{
> > >       An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran Device by publishing a
> > >       notice satisfying the following conditions:
> > >       
> > >       1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
> > >          Device.
> > >       
> > >       2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
> > >          initiation of the Device, a player.
> > >       
> > >       3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be devised.
> > >       
> > >       4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
> > >          the voting method.
> > >       
> > >       5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
> > >          the identified vote.
> > >       
> > >       6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same Device.
> > }}}
> > [I realised just in time that I forgot to do this this week – luckily
> > I'm still within the deadline. Going with Jason's suggestion. I'd
> > normally add this sort of thing to the "off" list, but the text
> > mentions "the initiation of the Device" which probably only makes sense
> > while the Device is on.]
> >
> > Incidentally, I believe the "grammatical variations" rule requires me
> > to replace "decided" with "devised", so I've done so above, but someone
> > might want to CFJ on that. Just to be on the safe side with respect to
> > SHALLs, I *also* intend, with Agoran Consent, to do the same thing
> > except with "decided" rather than "devised".
>
> And just in case my formatting mistake above causes problems later: I
> intend the same things, but without the email quotation markup between
> the {{{ and }}} marks (as arguably that's being quoted too).

With Agoran Consent, I do so (using the intent where the text does not
contain quote marks and with "decided"). Falsifian and Jason supported;
there were no objections. Disclaimer: this may fail if the correct
wording is "devised" rather than "decided"; see the CFJ below.

I believe I'm not required to resolve the intents that contain a
formatting mistake, even though they have the required support, because
the text is incorrect and thus I neither CAN nor SHALL resolve them –
the procedure for creating those intents was not followed correctly.

The intent without the formatting mistake, but with "devised", does not
currently have Agoran Consent.


Caller's Arguments: 

Rule 2655(c) requires me to replace each instance of a
chosen noun with "Device", "(including grammatical variations, e.g.
replacing "'s" with "Device's")". Does "decided" count as a
grammatical variation of "decision" for this purpose? If so, is the
corresponding grammatical variation of "device" "devised"? I think that
a parallel exists: a decision is something that has been decided, and a
device is something that has been devised (and etymologically,
"decision" and "decided" have the same root word, Latin "decidere").

If "decided" does count as a variation of "decision", then the rule
amendment failed because I didn't replace every word that I should
have.

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

Judge R. Lee's Arguments:

Rule 2665 reads as follows
' c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace

      each instance of that noun with "Device" (including grammatical
      variations, e.g. replacing "'s" with "Device's").'

This rule requires the Keeper of the Device to replace all instances
of a certain noun. The explanatory parenthetical notes that variations
of that noun must also be replaced. However the text outside the
explanatory/definitional parenthetical makes clear that only nouns can
be replaced and nowhere gives the power to replace adjectives or
verbs. Generally speaking, explanations or definitions don't
completely expand and replace the main text of the Rule. \

This interpretation is also supported by the best interests of the
game. The word 'device' has a clear plural form but it doesn't really
have a verb form. 'Devise' and 'device' are not listed as grammatical
forms of the same word in any dictionary. Furthermore, the adjectival
form of device is listed in some but not all online dictionaries as
being 'deviceful'.

Therefore the procedure at issue here which didn't change the word
'decided' succeeded. CFJ 3939 is TRUE.

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