What an entirely unforeseen event to happen to the Device oh my who could have predicted that the Device would end up used in such an explosive way wow this is incredible
On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 5:44 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > My judgement of CFJ 3964 follows. > > There's a lot to go into here, so I'll go in order of the actions taken. > > "Without 3 objections, I assign the Device to myself. [This would fail > if the Device had an assigned judge.]" > > This succeeds the first time, according to the tabled action rules, and > should also succeed any subsequent times if the device has no assigned > judge by those same rules, as ais523 "is a sponsor of a mature ripe intent > with less than [3] objectors." But this only applies if the device is off, > as that is when the tabled action is allowed. > > After the first device assignment, "the Device changes, following which > each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any)". What > does it mean for the device to change? We actually have a definition for a > device change: > > "A Device change is any effect that falls into the above > classes." > > but this only applies when the device is on, so the device changing is > undefined at this point. The device has multiple properties that could > change, including its assigned judge, its value, and potentially other > attributes. There is nothing that specifies what is to be changed about the > device, and where the text is silent, Rule 217 applies. Common sense seems > to indicate the first choice for what a change is is to turn the device > from off to on, or vice versa. It seems there is no other indication as to > what should change about the device, so if something has to change, which > it should for the best interest of the game in order to resolve ambiguity, > it would be the device's value, to on. Similar arguments plus a previous > judgement apply to the deactivation of the device. > > When ais523 attempts to assign the device to emself the second time, we > need to look with more scrutiny. What happened the first time? > > If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to > judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3 > objections. > > So ais523 assigned the device to emself. Does that mean the device has a > judge assigned? ais523 is certainly a judge, as e has judged multiple > CFJs. So the device is assigned to a judge. This certainly implies the > device has a judge assigned, but that is not explicit, the text is silent > and unclear, and Rule 217 applies. > > 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. The condition would also always be > true if the assignment wasn't symmetrical, when the action is implied to be > only supposed to be taken once; being able to take the action multiple > times just defies common sense: A device assigned to a judge has a judge > assigned. Game custom supports this, as the phrase "has no judge assigned" > wasn't explicitly coded in Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) either, yet we > agree it works that way. It is concealed, but unambiguous, because the > choice was already previously made to equate the two. > > So ais523 is the judge assigned, that the device has, and 99 of eir > attempts failed, both for the assignments and the deactivations (as the > device remained off), so all of eir attempts at cashing in sets of cards > failed. As such, e did not have enough winsomes to Take Over the Economy. I > judge CFJ 3964 FALSE. > > > With eligibility concerns: > > "The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all active > players except the initiator and the person barred (if any)." > > This part of Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) pretty clearly was only meant > to apply for CFJs, but the device doesn't care about that. It says: > > If a Device has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to > judge that Device CAN assign it to emself without 3 > objections. > > > Using that key word, eligible, which this time, we actually have a > definition for. Now what we don't have defined for the device is who the > initiator and the person barred are. Again the next is silent, and common > sense would say "the initiator" is a single player. For CFJs, it was the > initiator of the CFJ, so it makes sense to read this as "the initiator of > the device." > > To "initiate" is defined by Merriam-Webster as > > 1 *: *to cause or facilitate the beginning of *: *set going initiate a > program of reform enzymes that initiate fermentation > 2 *: *to induct into membership by or as if by special rites > 3 *: *to instruct in the rudiments or principles of something *(syn. > introduce)* > > These definitions lead to at least three different reasonable possibilities > I can see: > > The initiator of the device is the one who started it, or proposed it. (The > "special rites" of proposing the device fit nicely here.) > > The initiator is the one that instructs the device. (This could be the > device rule or the Mad Engineer, as both can instruct the device to perform > certain actions) > > The initiator is the one that started the device up, or turned it on. > > Of these, the first makes the most sense, as CFJs are similarly proposed, > but as statements to be judged rather than a rule change to be voted on. > The second is a bit of a reach considering the device isn't a person, so > saying it is instructed or introduced to something doesn't make much sense. > The third would be a potential contender if the rule said "the initiators", > but as there is only one initiator, it makes more sense to go with the > single player that proposed the device to start it off, G., who is not > ais523, meaning ais523 is eligible. > > This same line of reasoning could also be applied to the proposal itself > that enacted that rule that created the device. This would be a very > reasonable alternative, except that the context here is "all active players > except the initiator," and the proposal and rule are not active players. It > is common sense to assume the initiator is a potentially active player in > this context. And we do have such options to consider, so we did. > > The (if any) part for the person barred is easier, as no parts of the > device rules seem to bar anyone. (Although Jason was barred in the same > message as the attempted assignments, but that's irrelevant since e wasn't > being assigned.) > > Evidence: > > 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.* > ** 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. > > > -- > secretsnail >
