On 5/26/23 18:06, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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.
This ignores the fact that 7 out of 8 players that participated in Rice,
including you, wrote some variation of "I consent to [some] Rice Plan"
at least, which implies that the text at least heavily suggests that
"consent" applies to the Rice Plan.
Also, R217:
> 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.
> 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.
Does it make sense to "consent" under R2519 or to "consent" under
natural language?
If R2519, how do we apply the full definition? For instance, how do we
apply the "the action is taken as part of a promise which e created"
clause? Consider "I become a signatory to the rice plan". Maybe that
works instantaneously, but afterwards the player is no longer actively
"consenting", so what happens? "We can stretch this definition to apply,
but part of the definition makes no sense." isn't compelling.
If natural language, what is the communication standard for "consent"?
> 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.
Saying "I think X works, so Y works by analogy" when X has many of the
same issues as Y and you haven't provided logic for X working doesn't
provide any evidence for Y working. Neither this nor the next paragraph
actually explains why the lights work as rule text, it just makes
assertions that they do work.
> 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.
This is equivocating. The dispute isn't whether *players* consenting to
rice plans met the communication standard, it is whether the *rule* is
written in a functional way.
Also, you haven't explained how you have reached "adding a signature to
a rice plan" as the action from the text of the rule. Further, the rule
is clearly attempting to continuously evaluate consent for *something*.
If, as you suggest, the R2519 definition of "consent" applies, what
action is consent being evaluated for when a player is already a
signatory to a rice plan? "Becoming a signatory to the rice plan" is no
longer possible, and certainly "ceasing to be a signatory to the rice
plan" can't be reached from the text.
--
Janet Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
