On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 4:34 PM ais523 via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Amend R478 by deleting the following text: > > > > Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of > > any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall > > be prohibited from participating in the Fora > [snip] > > The resulting rule change broke a long-standing protection that > prevented the rules accidentally making it ILLEGAL to participate in > gameplay generally (see CFJ 1738). This has a chilling effect on > various forms of participation in Agora as a whole: this CFJ is asking > me to interpret the rules, but if I discover that the statement of the > CFJ is TRUE, that in turn means that I SHALL NOT give that verdict.
Just a point here, that Judge Janet brought up in eir CFJ 4025 judgement. Per CFJ 3403, the "Freedom of Speech" clause was about whole-forum banning, not individual speech acts. So it was never protective of making particular types of formal speech illegal. For example, No Faking functioned just fine (and was usable for penalties) even with the "Freedom of Speech" clause in place. CFJ 1738 dealt with a special case where a rules confluence effectively made *all* types of speech illegal for certain players, so wholly blocked public forum participation for those players. CFJ 3403 (just cited by Janet in eir CFJ 4025 judgement), which I wasn't aware of when I called this case, actually answers the question I meant to ask. Specifically that the "SHALL NOT interpret" refers to regulated acts of interpretation such as judgement delivery. To this end, I agree that the overall situation is "chilling" in that you're correct about your judgement being penalizable. and that should be fixed along lines that you propose. But CFJ 3403 clearly states this is not true to the Freedom of Speech clause at all (or the "chilling effect" of removing that lofty but ultimately limited protection from the ruleset). Excerpt from Judge Tiger's judgement: > In summary: when Rule 2125 talks about "interpreting the rules", it is > not the same "interpret" as in "well, I think this rules means X" when > spoken in a casual discussion. Rather, interpreting the rules, being > limited by that very clause, is a regulated action. It does not > prohibit anyone's ability to participate in the Fora, and there is no > conflict between the named paragraphs of Rules 2125 and 478. Apologies for not finding CFJ 3403 in the first place! -G.
