On 6/23/24 17:55, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>
>> On 6/22/24 22:45, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>>> ID: 9123
>>> Title: Anniversaries
>>> Adoption index: 2.0
>>> Author: Mischief
>>> Co-authors:
>>>
>>>
>>> Amend rule 1023 (Agoran Time) by appending:
>>>
>>> 5. Any anniversary, monthly anniversary, or quarterly anniversary
>>> that would otherwise occur on a day of the month that does not
>>> exist (after considering any leap day) instead occurs on the
>>> following day.
>>>
>>> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>> Is this sufficiently clear and unambiguous about which list this is to
>> be added to? That is, the top-level list vs the nested list.
>>
>> I know which it meant but it... makes me uncomfortable to decide that
>> solely based on the list item number or text of the list item
> Given that it also covers a different topic than the nested list (yearly
> and quarterly anniversaries don't pertain to "within a month"), I'd say
> it's sufficiently clear and unambiguous that it's to be added to the
> top-level list.
I CFJ: { Rule 1023 contains the text "Any anniversary." }
I CFJ: { Rule 1023 contains a list with exactly 5 list items. }
Evidence:
{
Rules, from [0]:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1023/40 (Power=2)
Agoran Time
The following terms are defined:
1. The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days". This
time period is set when the requirement is created (i.e. X days
before the limit ends). A requirement to perform an action at
an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the
same message", is instead interpreted as a requirement to
perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant.
2. The phrase "in an officially timely fashion" means "before the
end of the next Agoran week". This time period is set when the
requirement is created (i.e. between 7 and 14 days before the
period ends).
3. Agoran epochs:
1. Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.
2. Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. Eastman
weeks begin at midnight UTC on the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd,
and 29th of each Gregorian month; the fifth one of the
month (if any) lasts till the end of the month.
3. Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of
each Gregorian month.
4. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,
April, July, and October begin.
5. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January
begins.
6. A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began
(June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at which
at least one person won the game. When used as a period of
time, a "Round" (historical syn: "game") is the period of
time between a pivot and the next pivot.
The "Agoran" qualifier is assumed unless a different definition
is indicated (e.g. Eastman weeks). These definitions do not
apply to relative durations (e.g. "within <number> days after
<event>").
4. Two points in time are within a month of each other if:
1. they occur in the same Agoran month;
2. they occur in two consecutive Agoran months, and the later
of the two occurs in an earlier day in the month than the
earlier one;
3. they occur in two consecutive Agoran months on the same day
of the month, and the later of the two occurs at the same
or earlier time of day.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2429/2 (Power=1)
Bleach
Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different
non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except
if doing so substantially changes the semantic, logical, or
artistic structure of the text.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 105/25 (Power=3)
Rule Changes
When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
generally:
1. enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of
the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to
one if the enacting instrument does not specify or if it
specifies a power less than 0.1, and the maximum power
permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a
title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID
number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting
instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
2. repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule,
its power is set to 0, and the Rulekeepor need no longer
maintain a record of it.
3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent
rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number. If no
text is specified, the rule is reenacted with the same text it
had when it was most recently repealed. If the reenacting
proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule SHOULD have
materially the same purpose as did the repealed version. Unless
specified otherwise by the reenacting instrument, a reenacted
rule has power equal to the power it had at the time of its
repeal (or power 1, if power was not defined at the time of
that rule's repeal). If the reenacting instrument is incapable
of setting the reenacted rule's power to that value, then the
reenactment is null and void.
4. amend the text of a rule.
5. retitle a rule.
6. change the power of a rule.
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. If a
specification would ever be interpreted as causing multiple
changes to happen at once, it is instead interpreted as attempting
to cause them to occur separately, in the order they are listed in
the specification.
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
for the purposes of this rule. Furthermore, if the change being
specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
on its face. This provision does not prevent the specification of
undesirable changes; for instance, an amendment which adds a typo
is not corrected to remove the typo.
A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
take effect.
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become
a rule or cease to be a rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposal 9123, from [1]:
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
ID: 9123
Title: Anniversaries
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Mischief
Co-authors:
Amend rule 1023 (Agoran Time) by appending:
5. Any anniversary, monthly anniversary, or quarterly anniversary
that would otherwise occur on a day of the month that does not
exist (after considering any leap day) instead occurs on the
following day.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2024-June/017840.html
[1]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2024-June/017860.html
}
Arguments:
{
Proposal 9123 directs that a list item numbered 5. be appended to Rule
1023. Most of Rule 1023/40 (the previous revision) is a list with 4 list
items. The final existing list item contains a sublist, also numbered
with digits followed by periods. As such, it is potentially ambiguous
which list the list item should be added to (note that it is entirely
possible to add an incorrectly-numbered list item to a Rule, and Rule
105 explicitly does not "prevent the specification of undesirable changes").
In CFJ 3910, H. Judge Gaelan found that text "has a rich structure,
consisting of paragraphs, bulleted lists, etc; this structure is
communicated by its formatting". Thus, the proposal directs us
specifically to add a list item, not just "5." followed by some words.
However, it is unclear based on the formatting of the text whether the
list item applies to the top-level list or the nested list. Note that
the amount of whitespace before the list item is significant in the
Rule, and thus this question cannot be waved away Rule 2429.
Troublingly, the Promotor is generally not obligated to preserve the
exact whitespace in a proposal; it would be problematic to use this in
interpreting the rule change, but if it does, there is enough whitespace
suggest that the list item should be added to the sub-list.
Under the updated Rule 105 standard, it is possible that "the change
being specified would be clear to any reasonable player" and thus the
change is not ambiguous. However, this requires us to consider the words
being added and the context surrounding the proposal (whereas generally
the formatting of the text is supposed to convey its structure).
Personally, I don't like that as a matter of policy (and might try to
have such a ruling overturned legislatively), but I do admit it's a
possible holding.
And, to summarize the possible options of the two cases for the judge:
* "contains the text" TRUE, "contains a list" TRUE: the proposal added
the list item to the top-level list
* "contains the text" TRUE, "contains a list" FALSE: The proposal added
the list item to the sub-list
* "contains the text" FALSE, "contains a list" FALSE: the proposal had
no effect
* "contains the text" FALSE, "contains a list" TRUE: ???
}
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
