>about why exactly I shouldn't just rule that CAN (or SHALL) implies "by announcement" whenever it makes sense.
I think it might be good to have a rule which states the metaphysics of action on Agora lol (this relates to the telepathy problem too actually.) Proto: Whenever you CAN perform an action, without it being stated the method via the which you can perform such a CAN, you CAN (and must) perform it by announcement. On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > 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 > > > >
