On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 8:36 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I would like to ask for arguments for an issue completely unaddressed in
> arguments: How does Rule 2602's use of a continuously-evaluated condition,
> as in Rule 2350 and part of Rule 103, affect the operation of the "once"?
> In particular, does it make the "once" redundant because the condition
> remains true and an action can be "performed once" any number of times?
> Arguably this is the only interpretation permitted by the text and,
> therefore, other factors do not apply.
In all three of those examples, regardless of exact wording, the
condition is an event having previously occurred. In Rule 2602 it's
earning a ribbon, in Rule 2350 it's a decision being resolved as
FAILED QUORUM, and in Rule 103 it's one or more players winning Agora.
Well, I guess you're probably referring to the *other* condition in Rule 103:
If at any time the office of Speaker is vacant, or when one or
more players win Agora, then the Prime Minister CAN once appoint
a Laureled player to the office of Speaker by announcement.
But the "once" is clearly meant for "when one or more players win
Agora". As worded, it still *applies* to "if at any time the office
of Speaker is vacant", but it's redundant in that case. Whether
"once" means nothing, as you suggested, or whether (as I think) it
means 'once after each time the condition switches from false to
true', it doesn't matter, because appointing someone to the office
makes it no longer vacant. The only interpretation under which it
wouldn't be redundant is something like "if the Prime Minister has
never appointed anyone as Speaker in the history of the game", which
violates common sense anyway.
I think Rule 103 is relevant for a different reason: because the "win
Agora" side serves as an example of the type of clause Rule 2602 is
trying to imitate.
In Rule 2350:
If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as
FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add
the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement.
As I see it, the most obvious interpretation is that each resolution
creates a separate seven-day window, because otherwise "the proposal"
would be undefined when multiple proposals have been resolved as
FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days. I suppose an alternate
interpretation could be that it sets up a separate continuous
condition per decision (not per resolution), and "once" means either
'once after each time the condition switches from false to true' again
or 'once ever', both equivalent in this case because a decision can't
be resolved more than once. But I prefer the first interpretation
because it's more consistent with other clauses, such as the one in
Rule 103.
I also believe the first interpretation is consistent with the literal
wording, because the action can still only be taken if the continuous
condition is true; the per-event aspect merely clarifies "once".
Bolstering the case, I can't think of a good alternative phrasing that
would unambiguously choose the first interpretation, without either
incurring considerable verbosity or creating other ambiguities. For
example, one alternative is Rule 103's "when", but that also requires
some non-literal interpretation: the Prime Minister doesn't appoint a
new Speaker literally "when" – at the same time as – someone wins.
Finally, in Rule 2602, I believe "once per earning" would be the best
interpretation even without "(until e earns another ribbon)", for
similar reasons as above. But the parenthetical serves to clarify and
make it the only possible interpretation.
