Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official [2026-05-06 19:09]:
> I recuse Trigon from CFJ 4145 on grounds of lateness.
>
> I assign CFJ 4145 to juan.
>
> CFJ 4145 was called by Janet, and reads: 'Rule 2651 contains the text
> "the ADoP SHALL publish a document".'
>
> Original CFJ and caller's arguments:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2026-April/055422.html
I assign CFJ 4145 the following judgment:
{
Just for the sake of clarity, here's the relevant part of Proposal 9254:
{
Amend Rule 2651 ("The Election Cycle") by, as a single amendment
(failing as a whole if any step fails):
* Replacing "the ADoP CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of Election" with
"the ADoP CAN by announcement and SHALL issue a Notice of Election".
* Replacing "Such a notice initiates" with "Doing so initiates".
* Replacing "if there are fewer than 2 term-limited offices, the ADoP
MUST instead list all of them" with "or, if there are fewer than 2 such
offices, all of them".
}
And here's Rule 2651 with that ammendment:
{
Rule 2651/1 (Power=2)
The Election Cycle
A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by
winning an election, and has not won an election for that office
since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is either
vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office.
An office is term-limited if the most recent election for that
office was resolved more than the length of that office's term
prior. The term for the office of Prime Minister is 90 days. The
term for all other elected offices is 180 days.
A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office:
a) With 2 support (if the office is either interim or term-
limited) or 4 support (otherwise), and provided that the initiator
becomes a candidate in the same message.
b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP (or, if the office is the
ADoP, if e is the Assessor) and the office is interim, or if e is
the holder of that office.
Once per quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement and SHALL issue
a Notice of Election specifying between 2-4 term-limited offices
(or, if there are fewer than 2 such offices, all of them). Doing
so initiates elections for the specified offices. The ADoP SHOULD
prioritize offices that have gone longest since their last elections.
The above notwithstanding, an election for an office CANNOT be
initiated if one is already in progress.
}
Now, does Proposal 9300 work?
{
In rule 2651, change
{{{
Once per quarter, the ADoP CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of
Election specifying between 2-4 term-limited offices (if there
fewer than 2 term-limited offices, the ADoP MUST instead list all
them). Such a notice initiates elections for the specified
offices. The ADoP SHOULD prioritize offices that have gone
longest since their last elections.
}}}
to
{{{
Once per quarter, the ADoP SHALL publish a document, labeled as a
Notice of Election, that specifies 2-4 term-limited offices for which
elections can be initiated (if fewer than 2 such offices exist, the
notice MAY instead specify all such offices). The first time each
quarter the ADoP does so, elections are initiated for the specified
offices. The ADoP SHOULD prioritize offices that have gone
longest since their last elections.
}}}
}
There are factors weighing on both sides. On the side of not working:
* The change is clearly meant to apply to a previous version of the text.
* A player with no context other than the actual rule text (as judged
in CFJs 4143 and 4144) and the proposal would probably be confused about
the erroneous quotation.
* A situation is conceivable where such a conflicting change would
actually change the meaning of the rule in a way that the author of the
proposal did not intend.
On the other hand, there are arguments for it working:
* I, not being aware of the situation, and having only read the quoted
evidence, understand pretty clearly what was meant with the proposal. And
I'm a reasonable player.
* Having the previous SLR and proposal in hands, the CFJ judgment
notwithstanding, would make the resulting rule obvious.
The standards for rule changes are surprisingly lax as compared
to other standards of clarity in Agora. However, the rules are the
rules. Nonetheless, it's not clear to me that *any* reasonable player
would understand the intended changes the same way. *Some* reasonable
players might actually just be confused (as is evidenced by the calling
of a CFJ). I had access to the evidence in this case, but the case did not
exist at the time the proposal took effect. And the SLR was actually wrong,
and a CFJ was judged that way. We cannot base decisions on an assumption
that a player will use incorrect information for interpreting documents.
The difference to CFJs 4143 and 4144 is that in that case, the misquotation
is attributable to a missing word which is easily overlooked by any
reader, and any reasonable reader will understand that omission as the
result of that kind of overlooking. In the present situation, we are
actually dealing with a paragraph that had already been rewritten by
a proposal. The comparsion does not warrant transferring the judgment.
All-in-all, the mistake is confusing enough that it's not clear whether
the proposal took effect, and so it must not have done so.
I cannot abstract away an actual rule from this judgment, as the situation
is just confusing. So this hardly sets any precedent. How little should
have the proposal changed the paragraph to warrant the proposal at hand
actually working? I don't know.
In any case, I judge this CFJ FALSE. I'm sorry.
}
--
juan
