On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Judge's Arguments for CFJ 3557:
>>
>> This case boils down an interpretation of the application of Rule 2152
>> ("Mother, May I?") to Rule 2497 ("Floating Value"). The full text of both
>> rules is in the evidence below. To summarize the situation, the main
>> questions
>> of the case are:
>>
>> 1. Can the Secretary ever set the floating value?
>> 2. Can the Secretary set the floating value incorrectly?
>>
>>
>> The problem is that the rule never directly allows the Secretary to set the
>> floating value. Instead, it provides that "[...] the Secretary SHALL flip the
>> Floating Value to Agora's shiny balance." There are several interesting
>> precedents about whether SHALL implies CAN, all arising from cases called by
>> G.
>> CFJ 2120 states (apparently in accordance with previous precedent which I
>> couldn't find) that, where there is a SHALL without any reasonable mechanism
>> to
>> fulfill it, it implies CAN by announcement. This resolves question 1 in the
>> affirmative. The same case also ruled that where time limits are specified,
>> they
>> apply to the SHALL, but not the CAN. This arrangement was specified to
>> cause the deputization rules to continue working, and is affirmed.
>>
>> A second precedent comes from CFJ 2412. There, it was ruled that were
>> one rule says "SHALL" (but not CAN) and a second rule says "SHALL NOT"
>> (but not CANNOT) the implied CAN still works.
>>
>> Neither of these cases address required circumstances other than time.
>> I think that given that this whole business is based on common law
>> interpretation of implications, the primary guideline is to figure out
>> what exactly the rule is implying. In cases like this one, where
>> the rule is essentially "X SHALL do Y correctly", the correctness
>> of the action is essential to its success. If the rule was attempting
>> to specify so complex a concept as 'X CAN do Y, and SHALL do so correctly'
>> it would have said so. Note that this is completely different from cases
>> where the rule specifies when the condition is one of encouragement (such
>> as making it mandatory to do Y within a certain time), rather than
>> limitation.
>> Question 2 is accordingly answered in the negative. I note that while
>> this ruling is clearly against the interests of the game in this specific
>> case,
>> it is likely to be helpful in many other cases. I judge this CFJ FALSE.
>
> Just make sure I understand this ruling: can I conclude that the Secretary,
> under the rules as we have them today, CAN flip the Floating Value, but only
> correctly?
Yes, that is correct. BTW, I commend you for doing an outstanding job
a secretary and putting up with all the scams that people are trying
and such.
-Aris
