On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 8:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 2/10/2022 7:52 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> > I recuse cuddlybanana from CFJ 3941, and note that an apology or
> > explanation is in order.
> >
> > I assign G. to be the judge of CFJ 3941. ("Rule 2465 is a Device.")
>
> proto-judgement:
>
> First, "the device" (the switch) is different than "a device".
> Critically, "the device" (with the definite article) is not part of the
> general set of "devices", but rather distinct, so rules that refer to
> "devices" generally do not apply to "the device" switch. This is fairly
> clear from R2655 (The Mad Engineer) which defines the device (switch) and
> always refers to it using the definite article. I find in the context of
> the current rules, that difference is substantial and not a minor
> grammatical point.[*]
>
> Second, this may go without saying, but R2654 (The Device) is not a device
> or The Device by virtue of its title alone - that's just a label for a
> rule, not a definition of a rule.
>
> Third, this judgement does not opine on whether "voting devices", or
> "Agoran devices" or "Platinum devices" etc. fit into the set of devices
> referred to individually as "a device".
>
> With those preliminaries, the text in question is:
> * A Device is an entity with positive Power.
>
> Further, a look at R2654 at the time of the CFJ shows that this bullet
> stands on its own (it is not contextual with previous or following list
> items).
>
> This mirrors the text in R1688:
> An instrument is an entity with positive Power.
>
> That text is taken as the definitional description of "instrument". There
> is no contradictory text indicating another definition for "instrument",
> so this straightforwardly defines the term.
>
> The mirror text, then, is similarly clear - it defines "a device" as a
> term for entities with positive power. Furthermore, all of the other
> clauses referring to "devices" talk about additional abilities for devices
> without being definitions. So there is nothing in the rules to contradict
> the basic definitional idea that "a device" is an additional term for an
> "entity with positive power".
>
> TRUE.
>
> [*] An example here is the distinguishing of "The Lord" from "a lord". If
> you were speaking about the House of Lords, you'd say "the lords moved to
> adjourn" without meaning to include The Lord, and the fact that "the
> lords..." uses the definite article without the set including "The Lord"
> is reasonably clear from context.
>
>
>
> I don't read "A Device is an entity with positive power" as saying that
Device = entity with positive power (the two terms are synonyms). Rather
it's describing an attribute of Devices - a Device is a type of instrument
and it has positive power. Admittedly the only difference between the
instrument text and Device text is contextual and the Device rules are
intentionally gibberish nonsense with no rules. If I was more naturally
writing the instruments rule I would write it 'Entities with positive power
are also known as Instruments" or something, although its meaning is clear
in context.
Like if I said "A strawberry is a fruit with red coloring" that wouldn't
mean all red fruits are strawberries and that's precisely the same as this
rule here.
--
R. Lee
