> On Nov 29, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Aris Merchant > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thoughts appreciated, although I'm not going to make substantial > changes unless the arguments are extremely compelling. H. Arbitor, I > am not interested in judging any more cases (unless I explicitly favor > them or change my mind) till the end of the winter holiday. This has > been unusually exhausting. > > -Aris > > --- > Judge's arguments for CFJs 3611-3612 > > This is a continuation of the the same debacle that was considered in CFJ > 3605. > Given how many CFJs that situation has now caused, a more detailed summary > is in order for the historical record. As mentioned in that CFJ, V.J. Rada > scammed using Referee to illegally claim 3000 favors (almost certainly enough > to win the game, absent Herculean external intervention, which promptly > occurred). Eir specific scam was that e could point eir finger (the current > procedure for formally accusing someone of illegal action) an infinite number > of times, committing a trivial violation of the rules each time. E then > awarded > emself a green card (null penalty for a small violation) each time, and > was eligible to claim a reward. Well, a least this was eir plot. It failed, > because the message where e did everything except the rewards got caught > in the scam filter and never went through. The rewards succeeded, but V.J > Rada was punished for eir actions. E received a Blue Card from the new > Referee, later the subject of CFJ 2426.
Are you sure that’s the correct CFJ? http://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2426 > Pro-Radists, lead, unsurprisingly, by Rada emself, make three arguments > claiming that the Black Card was ineffective: > > 1. Rule 217, "Interpreting the Rules," invalidated the adoption of rule 2507, > "Black Cards". > 2. The Prime Minister's executive order was without effect because it > lacked the valid cause required by Rule 2426, "Cards". > 3. The penalty of the card had no effect in any case, because V.J. Rada was > a player at the time the penalty purportedly took effect. > > I now consider each in turn. I could stop after finding one claim true, but > that would mean deserting my obligation to fully resolve the issues and would > only prompt more CFJs. > > First, the change was indeed invalidated. Rule 217 states that: > > "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would (1) > prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve matters of > controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will > thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from causing formal > reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished, > is wholly void and without effect." > > This only operates on the rule change itself, and it must therefore be > evaluated > at the time of the proposal's adoption [1]. One reading would be that the > change > must have that effect immediately. This would permit a change that stopped > someone from CFJing, but provided a nano-second time delay first. In my view, > this interpretation is far to “too" > conservative of its construction of "prevent". The > next broader reading would be to suppose that the action fails only if it > is certain that the person would eventually lose their ability to CFJ. > This is facially a reasonable interpretation, but it not the only one, > and further is not in accordance with previous interpretation of the rule. > Reasonable max limits on CFJs have been accepted, but so has the requirement > that they must be reasonable in order to not, in practice, violate Rule 217. > I determine that the exact standard to be used is that no person can be > denied the substantive right to CFJ in the worst reasonably likely case. > This means that what amounts to a rate limit or is acceptable, but > most further requirements are probably not [2]. A rule that strips > someone of the ability to CFJ entirely, even as a punishment for crime CANNOT > meet this bar. Because Rule 2507 would do just that, its enactment entirely > failed. > > The second issue is whether the card was issued (presuming the Black Card rule > existed, which it didn't). Rule 2426, "Cards", states, in part [3] that > an attempt to issue a card is INEFFECTIVE "if it attempts > to issue a card for an action or inaction which is not prohibited by law". > The Black Card was issued "for betraying the good faith placed in em > as an officer by Agora. Agora deliberately voted to give officers > significant, game-disrupting power in maintenance of a complex mechanical > system, and so this abuse is one of the greatest contempts of the rules > that can possibly be committed. In particular, V.J. Rada is set to win as a > result of these violations, which would be horrifically unjust, and a Black > Card is the only available punishment which will deny em eir victory." [2] > Betraying Agora's trust is not a crime. Although V.J. Rada did commit crimes, > they is not cited as a basis for the card. Rule 2451, "Executive Orders", > attempts to give V.J. Rada a card. Rule 2426 attempts to block this. They are > thus in conflict. Rule 1030, "Precedence between Rules", tells us how to > resolve such conflict. Going down the list: they are of the same power (2.0), > they don't say their precedence is decided by another rule, and neither of > them > attempt to take precedence over or defer to the other with regard to > possibility, although Rule 2451 does claim precedence with regard to > permissibility. The conflict is thus resolved in favor of the rule with the > lower ID number. 2426 is less than 2451. The action was INEFFECTIVE, and no > card > was ever issued. > > The third issue is whether the Door was ever successfully Slammed upon V.J. > (presuming that the card was issued, which is wasn't). The Black Card rule > is intended to prevent cards from being issued to players, but the restriction > fails in this case due to rule precedence, as shown by Alexis when the card > was issued [4]. However, the Black Card rule provides another safeguard. > It says that "Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a person whose most > recent deregistration took place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules > to the contrary notwithstanding." The question here is whether the Door can > ever be slammed on a player. The phrasing is ambiguous, because it's unclear > whether it should be read "(player or person) who" or "player or (person > who)". I want to emphasize that this is textually unclear, and I do not > lightly resort to disambiguatory methods [5]. However, in an ambiguous > situation we should try to figure out what the rule means. Lawyers from > other jurisdictions have come up with a variety of tools, known as Cannons > of Construction, to help read statutory text [6]. Two are applicable here. > First is the rule against superfluity, which state that words should not be > intercepted in such a way that they have no effect (or, to put it another way, > such that their omission would not change the meaning of the rule). > Here, player would be meaningless if it were an antecedent of who. Under Rule > 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", a player merely is a registered person. > Saying "player or person" would render the word "player" superfluous, > extremely > strong evidence that the rule should not be read that way. The other rule > is called the rule of the last antecedent [7]. It states that the last > possible > antecedent should be preferred. This rule provides a uniform rule to deal with > situations of this kind, and I strongly recommend future judges apply it > wherever they're unsure (the first one is also useful, but less definitive). > The upshot of all this is that the correct nesting is "player or (person > who)", > and the Door can never be Slammed on a registered players. > > V.J. Rada's Black Card was apparently cursed. The rule providing for it didn't > exist, it was never issued, and it wouldn't have had any effect even if it > had been. Because the rule was never adopted, CFJ 3611 is TRUE, as the caller > argued. The restriction against Rada taking game actions was non-existent so > e could CFJ, making CFJ 3612 TRUE as well. *flashing “Applause” sign* -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
