I solicit comment on the following ruling. Absent an extremely compelling new argument, it's principles are basically final, but I would appreciate being told if any of my arguments need to be better supported, contradict rules or precedent, or are otherwise in error.
-Aris --- Judge's arguments for CFJ 3555: I am called here to address an urgent controversy regarding a defect in a recently adopted system: regulations. (I proposed regulations for some vague reason about allowing officers to have more control over the game, and to further my mysterious Massive Reform Plan.) Unfortunately, the proposal's author was evidently rather sloppy and didn't consider the effects on the gamestate. Previously Tournaments had operated on some vaguely implied magical principles (okay, not quite that bad, but close). The new rule clarified the behavior of tournaments. However, there was a tournament still ongoing at the time of the proposal's adoption, and the proposal didn't adequately clarify how the transition worked, among other problems. The results of the tournament (which may or may not have existed) then became entangled in the gamestate, such that the holders of two offices and the registration of a player are now arguably dependent on the results of the tournament. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (P.S.S.), as herald, initiated a tournament under the rule shown in E1 (see the caller's evidence for the regulations). However, this rule was then divided into two by Proposal 7865 as shown in E2. The foundational rule for new-style regulations is shown in E3. There are 4 major questions arising out of these rules: 1. Did the tournament regulations persist after the adoption of Proposal 7865? 2. If so, did the regulations continue to have effect after its adoption? 3. Would/did the system of the Herald announcing winners after the tournament is over work? 4. If all of the above are answered affirmatively, who won the game? [See caller's arguments] There is a longstanding custom (not currently codified, although it was in the past) that if possible, entities persist even when the rules that define them change. In general then, we would expect the tournament regulations to be valid even after the rule change. Several things argue against this expectation though. First, Rule 2493 strongly implies that regulations must have a list of parent rules. The regulations in this case did not. Secondly, Rule 2495 states "After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations, Without 3 Objections. By doing so e promulgates those regulations as a special temporary title of the ACORN." I believe those two sentences should be interpreted together, i.e. that initiating the tournament and promulgating the regulations must be the same action. That was not so in this case, because the ACORN didn't exist for the regulations to be promulgated into. Finally, and most damningly, Rule 2493 says that "A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for it to exist." So, if Rule 2464 and Rule 2495 did not authorize these regulations, as I hope I've shown they don't, they aren't even regulations at all! This means that answers to 1 and 2 are both no. Question 3 is made somewhat irrelevant by my determinations above. However, it may be relevant to future tournaments, and so I will attempt to answer it. It seems probable that the Herald having a period for discretionary punishment after the 4 weeks is not permitted, as eir power would be derived from the regulations, which have ceased to have effect. Adjudicating mandatory punishments for specific offenses seems reasonable, on the principle that the Herald would merely be interpreting what had already happened. Finally, the whole system of the Herald using secret information to decide the winner is suspect under the tournament and regulation rules, as they are pragmatically announcing unverifiable platonic state, something that I think unlikely to be effective in the absence of a clearer authorization. There are two ways that this kind of system could work. One way would be that the Herald's announcement of the winner platonically determines the winner (not possible given the phrasing of these regulations). Another method might be if the Herald was bound to report the winner(s) correctly. I can see this happening either if the Herald were bound to obey eir own regulations (that's an idea for future CFJs/proposals) or if all messages to a certain forum were required to be truthful (note that special properties have been assigned to such fora before, e.g. CFJ 1921). In the absence of such compelling reason to believe the Herald is being honest, this kind of "hidden gamestate" is likely implicitly barred for its ambiguity, if nothing else by Rule 101, and the interest of the game (see Rule 217). I'm definitely getting out of the normative part of this ruling by now, but for Question 4 I would suggest the following compromise had the tournament, been valid at its proper conclusion: a tournament's regulations CAN declare any person the winner, but, prima facie, they are only trying to choose a winner from those they have "binding control over", that is, "those who freely agree to play the tournament" (Rule 2464). I do however think that choosing the winner is part of the regulations' control "over the tournament itself" (ibid.). In accordance with my answers to questions 1 and 2, I judge this CFJ FALSE. I also determine that, had there been any winners, they would have been the ones specified by the caller. Evidence: E1 Rule 2464/0 (Power=1) Tournaments A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules. If a winner of a tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner. In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the responsibility for creating or running the tournament to another player, with that player's consent. The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner SHOULD be expected within 2-3 weeks following the tournament's initiation. After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations, Without 3 Objections. The initiation SHOULD be timed to coincide with Agora's Birthday. E2 Rule 2464/1 (Power=1) Tournaments A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules. If a winner of a tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner. A Tournament is governed by a special temporary title of the ACORN, created in accordance with its parent rule, which have binding control over those who freely agree to play the tournament and over the tournament itself. Once the tournament is concluded, these regulations cease to have any effect, and may be repealed by any player by announcement. Rule 2495/0 (Power=1) The Birthday Tournament In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the responsibility for creating or running the tournament to another player, with that player's consent. The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner SHOULD be expected within 2-3 weeks following the tournament's initiation. After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations, Without 3 Objections. By doing so e promulgates those regulations as a special temporary title of the ACORN. This title may thereafter be amended only by the Herald or eir designee without objection, to correct minor typos. The initiation SHOULD be timed to coincide with Agora's Birthday. E3 Rule 2493/0 (Power=3.1) Regulations A Regulation is an instrument defined as such by this rule. A regulation allows an officer (known as the Promulgator) to exercise rule defined powers. A regulation is in effect continuously from the time of its creation to the time of either its revocation or the repeal of the rule that allowed for its creation. When recommending a regulation, its Promulgator must specify by number the rule(s) upon which it is based (the parent rules), the list of which becomes an integral part of the regulation. The list of rules can generally be modified by the Promulgator according to the procedure for text changes. A regulation must be authorized by at least one rule in order for it to exist. A regulation has effect on the game (only) insofar as the rule or rules that authorized it permit it to have effect, and a regulation generally inherits the power of its least powerful parent rule, unless its Promulgator defines a lower power. If reasonably possible, a regulation should be interpreted so as to defer to other rules. The procedure for resolving conflict between regulations is the same as it is for rules. Regulations are generally issued according to the following procedures, and they can be repealed by the announcement of their Promulgator. Alternate procedures may be used if provided for by all of the regulations's parent rules. If one parent rule specifies procedures that are more stringent than those that the other(s) specifies, those apply. Creating, modifying, revoking, or allowing for a regulation is secured at power 1. A regulation (or set of regulations), authorized by another rule, may generally be enacted or modified by its promulgator without 2 objections, or with Agoran consent. A notice pursuant to the previous sentence is known as a "recommendation", and the regulation(s) are said to be "recommended" to Agora.
