I'm satisfied with the principles in the arguments I made, but I also
really feel like this is so on the edge that it could be decided either
way. Thus I submit my draft, seeking arguments for or against to
strengthen it.
{
I judge CFJ 4018 TRUE.
Introduction
------------
The text of the CFJ is "I currently own the Radiance stone." where "I"
refers to snail and "currently" refers to 4 Mar 2023.
It seems to me that the caller's argument is that the Radiance Stone and
the Score stone are the same based on Radiance essentially being a
rebranding of Score.
The other plausible interpretation is that the Score Stone has been
replaced by the Radiance Stone, swapped in place with analagous purpose.
R1586/9 makes it pretty clear that an entity can have its name changed:
A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name
refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came
to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since
changed.
And of course tells us that any other attributes can be changed as well:
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
with different attributes, then the second entity and its
attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
the new definitions.
The question is hinged on whether the rules "[define] the [entity] both
before and after the amendment". The rules do not give guidance on how
we would know whether these are the same entity.
What makes an entity?
---------------------
Through inference of Rule 1586, it seems that legally speaking an entity
is a specific collection of attributes. It's not clear whether an entity
needs to have a name, but if it does then its name is unique but could
be changed.
Augmenting this with common sense, and the best interest of the game, I
contend that not all attributes of an entity are equal. Clearly names
are crucial, as they get special treatment by the rules. Depending on
the entity, different attributes will be essential to its identity. For
example, the power of a rule is less identifying and less unique than
the name, number, or text of a rule.
I also argue that there is one more important common sense feature of an
entity: variously known as its personality, purpose, or identity. While
the rules are largely silent on this, it seems to be implied by the
re-enactment mechanism. Re-enactment has been used for rules with
different titles and text than what they're re-enacting but a similar
purpose, and in fact this seems to be considered preferable by players
over a new rule, even tho the difference is purely semantic.
So how do we know if two entities are the same entity? If they have the
same name, they are by definition (R1586). Otherwise, they must share
crucial attributes and a purpose (syn. personality, identity). They also
must have continuity with each other (as if there's a gap between their
existences, then the first one was destroyed per R1586).
So, are these stones the same entity?
-------------------------------------
Stones have four rule-defined attributes (per R2640/3):
(i) A name unique among stones;
(ii) The smoothness of the stone, which is a non-negative integer;
(iii) A description of the stone's properties
(iv) Optionally, a frequency, which must be one of daily, weekly,
monthly, or quarterly.
Of these, the name and description are the only unique parts. Smoothness
and frequency can be shared with another stone. Thus, I find that name
and description are essential attributes of a stone.
Here are the relevant stones:
From R2645/17:
- Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's
(defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased
by 3.
From R2645/18:
- Radiance Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player
(defaulting to the wielder if not specified) gains 3 radiance.
Their frequency and smoothness are identical, but these attributes are
also identical to the Soul Stone. Their names are different. Their
descriptions are analagous, as Radiance is analagous to Score (if not
the same thing, tho that is unexplored here).
What about purpose? It seems to me that they have the same purpose. Both
of them increase the analagous value in their respective rulesets the
same amount, with the same goal. Both of them are clearly intended to be
stones that help anyone trying to win by High Score.
What we find then is one entity being replaced with something else with
a different name, nearly the same description, identical frequency and
smoothness, and the same purpose. I find that these are the same entity.
}
--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald, Collector
