Seriously considering to send to business that i jaywalk without a license with dangerous levels of swagger anyways
søn. 21. mai 2023, 2:19 p.m. skrev Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>: > G. wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 4029. I assign it to Murphy. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4029 > > > > =============================== CFJ 4029 > =============================== > > > > There was an infraction noted in this message. > > > > > ========================================================================== > > > > Caller: Yachay > > > > Judge: Murphy > > > > > ========================================================================== > > > > History: > > > > Called by Yachay: 12 May 2023 13:24:04 > > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > > > > ========================================================================== > > > > Caller's Evidence: > > > > Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > >> I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for > jaywalking > >> without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. > > > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > > > So, after the silence, finding that a couple other players actually don't > > know what "Invisibilitating" is either, and some simple searches in the > > mail archives, apparently "Invisibilitating" relies on gamestate that > > supposedly still exists after 10+ years. I thought we didn't dig into the > > past that far to consider how many turtles down the current gamestate was > > held up by, but if we do, then: > > > > - Why would we make a special case just for Invisibilitating > specifically? > > What about other ancient things that may affect how other *current* > things > > of the game work too? > > - Are we even sure that the secret Invisibilitating instrument still > exists > > or works as intended? > > - It takes agency away from newer players and puts more into older ones > > which are more familiar with this obscure ancient arcana which has now > > supposedly been made relevant, which feels terrible. > > > > Thankfully, I'm far from a win so I have a margin to endure risking some > > blots, which I'll spend to try to uncover more about this. > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Gratuitous Arguments by G: > > > >>> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: > >>> > >>> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. > > > > Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made > > the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the > > pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm > > under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in > > any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) > > there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet > > search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be > > interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that > > potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional > > sense. Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended > > that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional > > guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > > > >> Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > >> Invisibilitating > >> > >> Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > >> proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > >> parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > >> changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > >> that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > >> Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. > > > > [0] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html > > [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html > > > > > > ais523 wrote: > >> It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete > >> list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where > >> their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the > >> list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal > >> 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) > >> > >> Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's > >> no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that > >> Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, > >> but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best > >> interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or > >> undefined but don't provide a definition.) > > > > > > G. wrote: > > I grepped the full BUS and OFF mboxes, and searched the CFJ archive, > > and I believe that there were never any legal proceedings accusing > > anyone of Invisibilitating, either while it existed in the previous > > iteration or afterwards. The only references I found were the > > enactment, the repeal, and the appearances in the ruleset or the > > proposal. This vaguely matched my memory that it was rarely if ever > > used. > > > > In this special case, I disagree that we are limited to the R217 > > definitional sources - in particular, because there are *no* R217 > > definitional sources, and the "text of the rules" says > > Invisibilitating is a crime, so we need to interpret that text of the > > rules. To that end, I would say we have to use the "common sense or > > game custom" to find some kind of definition, outside the R217 > > sources. Of course, I fully realize that it might be neither common > > sense nor game custom to use the old sense of the term. > > Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals, Power=3) states that adopted proposals > "take effect", and: > > Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one > after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is > instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own > effect. Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set > to 0. > > Contrast the first sentence of Rule 2141 (Role and Attribute of Rules, > Power=3.2): > > A rule is a type of instrument that is always taking effect and > has the capacity to govern the game generally. > > So the argument for a roughly 20-year-old proposal continuing to inform > the definition of "Invisibilitating" is weak at best. But even if it was > accepted as the closest thing to a definition that is available, the > alleged actions of "jaywalking without a license, compounded by having > dangerous levels of swagger" would not fit it anyway. > > I judge FALSE. >
