On Mon, May 8, 2023 at 9:53 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The below CFJ is 4023. I assign it to 4st. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4023 > > =============================== CFJ 4023 =============================== > > Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0. > > ========================================================================== > > Caller: Aspen > Barred: Janet > > Judge: 4st > > ========================================================================== > > History: > > Called by Aspen: 02 May 2023 16:16:29 > Assigned to 4st: [now] > > ========================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > Adoption message of proposal in question (proposal 8639, 'sole quorum'): > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb wrote: > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb wrote: > > > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so > as to > > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, > even > > > by r105 standards? > > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > > inherently ambiguous. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gratuitous Arguments by nix: > > Gratuitous FOR: > > "ambiguous" requires more than one possible interpretation. I don't > understand the assertion that something is "ambiguous" without > clarifying the two or more ways to interpret it. > > Additionally, the rules do not define "amend". They name "amending the > text" as a rule change, but that's not a definition. It's clear (and > AFAICT, unambiguous) that "amend the power" refers to changing the power. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: > > I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it > does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the > fact that Rule 105 now *explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change > but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should > be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would > be surplusage. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by nix: > > I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to > compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear > e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to > argue the exact opposite of what the intent was. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by Janet: > > I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes > other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. > > > Gratuitous Arguments by G.: > > Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to > a problematic cycle. Consider the following: > > 1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em. > Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text. > > 2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the > clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along, > but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry > right? > > 3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as > proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be > read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also > perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original > language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding > clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's > always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and > might have been perfectly clear to most people. > > This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to > weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound reasoning, > nor does it make for good rules-writing. Whatever else the merits of > this particular case, that logic should not be a reason for a finding, > one way or the other. > > In terms of the merits of the case itself: > > Communication in Agora is a balance between precision and free > expression. In particular, it's not necessarily good to privilege > "exact incantations", and R217 is direct and explicit in the use of > synonyms. While the R105 clarity standards tip "rule change" > specification to be more towards precision, it's not absolute. And > also - we don't tend to privilege verbs alone, but verbs in context of > object or subject. In particular, amend, change, alter etc. are all > synonyms. All of the R105 rule change types that involve changing an > existing rule (amending rule text, retitling a rule, and changing the > power of a rule) are differentiated by their object (rule text, title, > or power), NOT the verb used, which is essentially 'change'. While > "retitle" embeds the object in the verb and so can only be used to > specify titles, using "change" or "amend" with one of those specified > objects is absolutely or perfectly clear as to which action is meant - > keyed by the object type, not the exact synonym for "change" that was > used. > > In the proposal in question[0], the "uncertain" proposal clause was: > > > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3. > > This is perfectly and abundantly clear as to the object (power), the > double amend/change is harmless synonym pairing and emphatic, and the > action (of changing power) should be absolutely clear, even at the > R105 standard. > > [0] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html > > ========================================================================== > (Draft ruling) Summary of Evidence: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html Rule 217/12 (Power=3) Interpreting the Rules When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in higher-powered rules, but may constructively make reasonable clarifications to those definitions. For this purpose, a clarification is reasonable if and only if it adds detail without changing the underlying general meaning of the term and without causing the higher powered rule to be read in a way inconsistent with its text. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect. Rule 105/23 (Power=3) Rule Changes When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can generally: [...] 6. change the power of a rule. A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule. The conflict comes from "any ambiguity" in Rule 105. Could we construe Janet's argument as "any ambiguity"? The answer, unfortunately, is yes, definitely. We could construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." to mean that we are starting a rule change, and that rule change is to change the power of that rule. We could also construe "Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3." to mean nothing, because amending a rule is already has a definitive definition under rule 105, and its definition is to change the text of the rule, and the power is not part of the text of a rule. This reading is unreasonable, and borders on bad-faith (despite the good intentions of bringing this matter up): the player who wrote the proposal had clear intentions of changing the rule based on further context of the proposal, and provided further commentary that the power should be at that level. Even worse, we could introduce this level of unreasonable ambiguity on any rule change, see CFJ 4027 for a more serious case, however, consider also that this level of ambiguity could be introduced outside of a contract, at a power=1 rule, thus nearly, if not fully, ossifying Agora, at such a low level. However, this is silly, and could prove to be quite destructive reasoning. To work our way out of this, we have rule 217. Per rule 217, "Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game." Fortunately, the text is silent on the definition of ambiguity. "Ambiguity means language in an agreement has more than one meaning. Cases such as this one from New York explain that ambiguity in the context of a contract is defined as “whether a reasonably intelligent person looking at the contract objectively could interpret the language in more than one way.”" -- https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ambiguity To fully apply the criteria of rule 217 on the proposal itself: Per past judgements: CFJ 1460 actually rules against this ambiguity existing in general. Per common sense, "amend" means "change". Per game custom, Proposal 8639 has been in effect for a long time as the power it purported to put the rule as. Per best interest of the game, it would be easiest if we move forward with this change having worked, as this prevents having to redo the work proposal 8639 already initiated. Secondly, in the best interest of the game, allowing reinterpretation this much in the future from the time a thing happened feels very incorrect: retroactivity is secured at power=3, and setting a precedent that sometimes we can do things like this feels very wrong, especially since I don't think that an AI=3 opinion on this matter has been reached in favor of the change being ineffective. Thus I find the change to not have been ambiguous at the time it took effect, and therefore, not ambiguous now. HERETOFORE: I find that the term ambiguity requires there exists at least two definitive, common-sense interpretations. Furthermore, to be perfectly and unambiguously clear, it should go without saying: if an interpretation is unreasonable, then it is not common-sense. I also find that the term "ambiguity" should not be taken in a vacuum: when in doubt, consult the context. I find Janet to NOT be an idiot and to NOT have acted in bad faith. Enacting proposals as written should be something all players confirm is done correctly, not just one. I find that reinterpretation that affects gamestate a player must track must be done within a quarter to prevent serious retroactive changes. I find that Proposal 8639 did set the power of Rule 879 "Quorum" to 3. I find this CFJ to be TRUE. as written is difficult -- 4st Referee Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
