On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:39 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:18 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > On 5/26/23 14:14, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 11:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion
> > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >>> Now, it is sufficient to determine whether "that Rice Plan having
> that
> > >>> player's Signature" is an action or not. I'd say that it is a
> regulated
> > >>> action, fitting all three criteria for regulated actions: the rules
> have
> > >>> said how it occurs, whether it succeeds, and it affects gamestate the
> > >>> Ricemastor must track.
> > >>
> > >> Again, it's not an action, it's a property or a state of affairs.
> > > I disagree here. The judgement could wordsmith this critical point a
> > > bit better, but it's perfectly reasonable within the bounds of the
> > > rule text and common sense to say that going from "not having a
> > > signature" to "having a signature" is a change (an action) that
> > > happens with consent.
> > >
> > > -G.
> >
> >
> > I agree that a change from not signing to signing is an action.
> >
> > I disagree that the text can be construed to evaluate "consent" with
> > respect to that. The text doesn't suggest that to me at all, and it
> > would be continuously evaluating "consent" ("as long as e is
> > consenting") for an instantaneous change.
> >
>
> Sure, absolutely - I can see either reading, and I'm not sure rn
> whether my first-blush intuitive take holds up under scrutiny - not
> currently convinced in either direction.
>
> Judge 4st,
>
> I think the above short exchange really narrows the scope of the CFJ
> to the critical point of contention - does the specific text support
> "granting consent" (by the methods in the Consent rule) as a trigger
> for going from "without signature" to "with signature", or not? And
> to be clear, we know the opinion of the officer is that e thinks that
> it does (and that, as rule author e *intended* it to be true). But
> intent in rules-writing doesn't count if the rule text doesn't support
> it, except perhaps as a (very low weight) tiebreaker. So it's not a
> question of whether the officer recorded it that way (that's a post
> hoc fallacy), but whether the officer's opinion is correct.
>
> -G.
>
G/Janet, with regard to the officer opinion or not, I have to judge whether
"some players have rice", that is what the judgement is called upon, which
is why I'm trying to include a short statement so that I don't have to redo
all of the ricemastor's work otherwise. If that is insufficient, then I
judge this case INSUFFICIENT trivially, on the belief as it shouldn't have
been assigned to anyone.
Oh, I'll just judge it insufficient anyway, that doesn't hurt anything...?
Evidence:
Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
The Rice Game
The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
has created by announcement.
A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
- If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
Rice Plan is Harvested.
- If there is more than one Rice Plan with the most Signatures,
the one that was created earliest is Harvested.
- In all other cases, nothing happens.
And then all Rice Plans are destroyed and the Harvest ends.
Rice Plans consist of two lists of players, with each list having
no repeated players, and the lists can be empty. One of these
lists is its Rice Up list, and the other is its Rice Down list.
When a Rice Plan is Harvested, for each player listed in its Rice
Up list, if that player is active, e gains 1 Rice; and for each
player listed in its Rice Down list, if e has at least 1 Rice then
e lose 1 Rice.
If after a Harvest there is a single active player with at least 2
Rice and more Rice than any other player, then that player wins
the game, and all Rice is destroyed. When the game has been won in
this manner three times, this rule repeals itself.
Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
Consent
A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
at the time the action took place:
1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
unambiguously indicates eir consent;
3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
take place or assented to it taking place.
Rule 2125/13 (Power=3)
Regulated Actions
An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances
under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action
would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some
player is required to be a recordkeepor.
A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the
Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
The controversy is over this sentence in particular:
"A Rice Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
consenting to it."
The first ambiguity being what is "it"?
"It" being either "that rice plan" or "that rice plan having that player's
Signature".
In the first case, "that rice plan" is not an action, so it is unreasonable
to consent to it and also somewhat undefined. From CFJ 4023, I similarly
found that ambiguity should have common sense interpretations, thus, I hold
this argument here as well, despite it being non-binding.
In the second case, "that rice plan having that player's Signature" is a
continuous state. It doesn't make sense to consent to a continuous state of
something.
So this still shouldn't work... right? EXCEPT, it does make sense to
consent to changes in that state, and it is reasonable to assume that this
is what one would consent to. Being reasonable Agorans, we would then
reasonably interpret it only in the way(s) that make sense.
Now, for an illustrative example: "A light has a turned on switch as long
as the owner is consenting to it."
We know how lights work, they have switches, similar to rice plans. (In
this case, the lightswitches are voice-activated or perhaps telepathic.)
Now consider the case: "I, homeowner, consent to the lights."
Does this turn on the lights? I would argue that yes, it does, if the
lights were off before. If the lights were already on, well, it's fine.
Maybe they were broken, or we need our eyes checked. The lights are still
trying to be on, and their state hasn't changed. We've reaffirmed that
consent. And we can still turn them off, or try to turn them off, by
revoking our consent, or attempting to revoke our consent.
Now, in this example, the homeowner consented to "the lights", which is not
an action. However, it is clear shorthand for the primary purpose of the
lights. Similarly, I find that Rice Plans have this behavior as well, so
consenting to a Rice Plan (as most players have done), is shorthand for
consenting to that rice plan having eir signature. Where "adding a
signature to a rice plan" being the change specifically we are consenting
to (per rule 2519). There are numerous other ways to consent to adding a
signature to a rice plan, which due to how rule 2519 works, are pretty free
from exact specifications: as long as it's reasonably clear, it'll still
work.
Notice that this sentence of the rule is very terribly written: Nobody
writes the specifications for a lightswitch in this way.
(There are numerous other differences between these lights and rice plans,
however I hope this example helps clear up some confusion about this
controversy.)
However, overall, I find that judging whether "some players have rice" is
explicitly unreasonable without evidence. I'm pretty sure it's TRUE based
on the Ricemastor's report, but I'm not going to go to extended lengths to
verify it. I've verified one important contentious point with this ruling,
and I think that's plenty, especially given the lack of evidence from the
caller, and only gratuitous arguments from Janet. (thanks a ton by the way!)
Conclusion:
Firstly: if non-actions were consented to, it is irrelevant.
Secondly: players have consented to "Rice Plans having eir signature".
Consent just needs reasonable clarity to work, and this regulated action
occurs when the signature is added or removed, and the consent can be given
or taken prior to the action occurring.
Thirdly: The particular sentence of the rule is written a little
confusingly and poorly, however, it is LEGAL to write rules this way. Even
if it is ambiguous, it is LEGAL for it to be so, and doesn't impact its
behavior as a binding rule.
THUS, I judge the case INSUFFICIENT, in the hopes that the concern that
caused the CFJ is sufficiently resolved by the reasoning that was presented
anyway.
--
4st
Referee & Deputy (AKA FAKE) Herald
Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
