On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 6:47 PM ais523 via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> It's already been found by CFJ (CFJ 3933) that deactivating the device
> turns it off. More generally, that CFJ found that words that the rules
> define in one context (e.g. activity) don't necessarily use that
> definition in another context, if the original definition was specific
> to the context.
While the spirit of that CFJ is still very relevant, I don't think the
specific finding of it is, given how much has been added to the device rule
since, creating more possibilities for what "deactivating" the device could
mean.
The difference:
Rule 2654/6 (Power=1)
The Device
When the device is on:
* click - hummmmmmm
* The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device,
together with the following week, is a Holiday.
* A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement.
When the device is off:
* whirrrrrr - THUNK
* By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend,
or repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator.
* Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
by the Agoran Device that e can no longer abide to be a part
of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly
labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and
expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em
so badly.
VS
Rule 2654/32 (Power=1)
The Device
When the device is on:
* click - hummmmmmm
* The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Device,
together with the following week, is a Holiday.
* A Device CAN activate or deactivate emself by announcement.
* Any player CAN refile a Device without objection, specifying a
new title; the Device is retitled to the specified title by
this Device.
* The Speaker qualifies for a Platinum Device.
* The time window of a Device is W days, where W is the value
explicitly stated by the Device, or 60 if the Device does not
explicitly state a value. A Device ceases to exist at the end
of its time window.
* Each Agoran Device has a voting method, which must be
AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post.
* The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
unregulated Devices.
* The voting Device is that specified by the authorizing
authority, or first-past-the-post by default.
* An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran Device by publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions:
1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
Device.
2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
initiation of the Device, a player.
3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined
by the voting method.
5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
the identified vote.
6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same Device.
* The voting Device of an entity on an Agoran decision is an
integer between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power
2 or greater.
* A Device is an entity with positive Power.
* The Treasuror CAN conduct an auction (a "Device auction") if
no Device auction is ongoing.
* A Device change is any effect that falls into the above
classes.
* When a Device wins an election, e is installed into the
associated office and the election ends.
* As this Device is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a
Bearer of this Device OUGHT to be treated right good forever.
* Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a
secured untracked Device switch with possible values ordinary
(the default) and democratic.
When the device is off:
* whirrrrrr - THUNK
* By default, a device CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, enact, amend,
or repeal a regulation for which e is the Promulgator.
* Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
by the Agoran Device that e can no longer abide to be a part
of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly
labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and
expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em
so badly.
* When e does so, e fulfills any obligations with regards to
that device.
* Text purportedly about previous instances of the device (e.g.
a report's date of last device) is excluded from the device.
* If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3
objections.
* Then, the Device changes, following which each active player
gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any).
* The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which
e feels may be helpful in the use of the Device in the FLR.
* A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Device to
a specified player by announcement.
* At any given time, each instance of a Device has exactly one
possible value for that type of Device.
* Any player CAN grant a Welcome Device to any player if the
grantee has neither received one since e last registered nor
in the last 30 days.
* When the rules call for an Agoran Device to be made, the
Device-making process takes place in the following three
stages, each described elsewhere:
1. Initiation of the Device.
2. Voting of the people.
3. Resolution of the Device.
* When a Rule specifies that a random Device be made, then the
Device shall be made using whatever probability distribution
among the possible outcomes the Rule specifies, defaulting to
a uniform probability distribution.
So it's more unclear, and potentially ambiguous, which would just make
deactivation fail. Also, that CFJ didn't address the contradiction of being
able to activate the device while it's already on.
> (In terms of your earlier discussion about what "the device changes"
> does – remember that the device is a switch with two positions, so the
> logical thing to change is the switch's position.)
>
I feel like the written definition for a device change is what mucks this
up. If a device change could be "any of the above", then why should it just
be turning the device from off to on specifically when it's after an
assignment? "The devices changes from its current value to its opposite
value" is just one possible interpretation, as is "the device changes from
its current type to a different type (such as welcome device)", "the device
changes from its current title to a different title", "the device changes
from its current time window to a different time window", etc. It needs to
be more specified for anything to actually happen.
>
> > When ais523 attempts to assign the device to emself the second time, it
> > fails, as the device already has em assigned as a judge. The borrowed
> text
> > should work the same as it does for CFJs. "If a Device has no judge
> > assigned, then any player eligible to judge that Device CAN assign it to
> > emself without 3 objections."
> The device rule doesn't say "assigns as a judge", just "assigns" (thus
> based on the same precedent, "assigns" doesn't necessarily create any
> sort of judging relationship).
>
You don't have to be in a judging relationship to be a judge assigned to
the device. You can just be a judge on unrelated things, like CFJs. And if
anyone would be assigned to the device, it's you.
> You're also implicitly assuming here that there is no distinction
> between "the Device is assigned to ais523" and "ais523 is assigned to
> the Device". I think this is one of the most interesting/relevant parts
> of the CFJ, and would like to see it addressed explicitly; the state of
> being assigned to something isn't normally symmetrical. (Rule 991
> explicitly makes the two one-way equivalent for CFJs – assigning a CFJ
> to a judge assigns the judge to the CFJ, because "to assign a CFJ to a
> person" is explicitly defined – but there's no equivalent rule for
> Devices, so the outcome may be different.)
>
I should probably be more explicit then.
* If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3
objections.
The device would definitely be assigned to you, as that's exactly what it
says. But you do not need to be assigned TO the device. The condition is if
the device has a judge assigned, but it doesn't specify if the judge is
assigned to the device or if the device is assigned to you, which implies
it's equating the two, which is the natural meaning anyways. If you ask
"who is the
> > With eligibility concerns for being a judge of the Device, it seems that
> > all players that didn't initiate the device are eligible, so that can be
> > disregarded.
> >
> > "The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all active
> > players except the initiator and the person barred (if any)."
>
> This is an interesting point – can "initiate the Device" be interpreted
> as turning it on (as opposed to creating it, which happened as the
> result of a proposal being enacted)? The relevant sentence of rule 991
> doesn't say it's specific to CFJs, but it looks like it was intended to
> modify the previous sentence (in which case it would be).
>
Yeah it probably just doesn't have any effect here. But if that were the
case, you might not be an eligible judge since it's not defined. The
natural language meaning seems to be "someone who has the right, who
satisfies the appropriate conditions" but there would be no conditions, yet
also no given right, so it seems ambiguous. But I also just naturally want
to say you are eligible.
Anyways the device is a mess
--
secretsnail
