First whatever the result, don't worry over-much! If you just reinstate it as
is, I won't call to reconsider. We should actually use this as a conversation
over
what the best choice of default *should* be, and put the default in the rules
explicitly - and meanwhile, all the things that are broken because of this are
on
their way to being fixed with current proposals.
So you can stop reading here if you want... but if you want to go further:
My issue is that the way your ruling reads (and the past rulings)
amounts to "because we've always done it that way" but when you read back the
precedents it peters out with basically the same explanations of "we've always
done
it that way", and since we don't know which version of the rules this assumption
depends on, we don't know if the current rules actually support the argument.
So I think it deserves some stronger guidelines. Below, you say "whenever it
makes
sense", but it would be good to set up a strong baseline to refer back to, when
*does* it make sense, based on current rulesets? Because we've *also* many
times
in the past refused the consider something done, specifically *because* it
didn't
say "by announcement" in the rules.
I think *any* of the following would be reasonable:
1. If it says CAN, SHALL, or MAY, but doesn't give a method, Rule 101 (saying
the
game is played through fora) and Rule 478 are enough to give us a general
default
of doing things by announcement. (But we should hard-code that with a
proposal).
2. That's too dangerous. Let's say a rule leaves out a "without objection" or
it breaks due to bad grammar, then a w/o objection could default to "by
announcement"
which is dangerous. Since we work by consensus, the *true* default should be
"without objection", because it means everyone agrees that it's clear that it
"makes sense".
3. R478 reads:
"Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement"
"...
R2125 reads:
"Restricted Actions CAN only be performed as described by the Rules."
So a textual reading is clear, the rules have to define "CAN by announcement",
otherwise the action performance method isn't "described by the Rules", and
isn't allowed. Whatever the past case, this is reading the actual rules.
I have a personal preference for (3), because otherwise it just tips to
"too much unwritten stuff overriding the actual rules text". But if you chose
options (1) or (2) in your judgement, I think the main thing for it to be a
solid judgement is to directly address why your choice isn't in direct conflict
with the actual rules text of those rules noted in (3).
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Just when I think I've resolved all the problems. *sigh* I file a
> motion to reconsider CFJ 3557, and invite arguments about why exactly
> I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by announcement"
> whenever it makes sense. Seems like a perfectly reasonable ruling, all
> things considered.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:53 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sep 14, 2017 7:44 PM, "Kerim Aydin" <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> >> 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.
> >
> > Unfortunately, CFJ 2120 gets precedent wrong, and this concerns me.
> >
> > CFJ 2120 says "SHALL implies CAN by announcement, based on the precedent in
> > CFJ 1765".
> >
> > But a look at CFJ 1765 shows the arguments are:
> > I believe that the obligation to perform an action in conjunction with
> > the phrase "by announcement", as used in the last paragraph of
> > R1871/18,
> > implies a mechanism for the action
> >
> > In other words, the chain of precedents that we're relying on actually
> > starts
> > with: SHALL by announcement implies CAN by announcement.
> >
> > This isn't so much of a stretch!
> >
> > So I'm worried that the missing "by announcement" is never addressed with
> > any reason
> > and based on faulty precedent...
> >
> > It would be great to be clear and set a precedent, if "by announcement" (or
> > other
> > method like w/o objection) isn't specified, when can we infer "by
> > announcement"?
> > I mean, why doesn't it imply w/o objection instead, just as an example. If
> > SHALL
> > works, does it work for MAY? Lower case directives? Etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I find this pretty compelling but I have no skin in the game (and am a fan
> > of pragmatism generally).
> >
> > I would support a motion to reconsider if others find this argument
> > compelling enough and provided additional arguments/evidence about the
> > gamestate, but I'm not going to initiate one.
> >
> >
> > -grok
>
