On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 2:45 PM 4st nomic <4st.no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 10:51 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> The below CFJ is 4044. I assign it to 4st. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4044 >> >> =============================== CFJ 4044 =============================== >> >> On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game. >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> Caller: Janet >> >> Judge: 4st >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> History: >> >> Called by Janet: 23 Jun 2023 16:28:37 >> Assigned to 4st: [now] >> >> ========================================================================== >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> This comes down to whether P8988 (adopted without dispute) affected the >> continuity of previous "signatures". I argue that, after it took affect, >> nobody had "signed" a rice plan. "Sign"ing, in the new text, is a >> specific by action performed by announcement that necessarily could not >> have been performed before the proposal was adopted. The condition of >> "having signed" a rice plan is evaluated continuously, and must >> therefore always use the current definition in force. >> >> Even if redefining the action could allow continuity with some previous >> action, Judge ais523 found in CFJ 4032 that "consent" to Rice Plans was >> not a specific action, but a continuous state to be evaluated using >> either natural-language standards of consent or an adaptation of R2519, >> yielding similar results, but in neither case requiring a regulated >> action of any form. >> >> R1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") is irrelevant. Rice >> Plans are clearly continuous, but "signatures" are not entities under >> either the current or former version of the rule. >> >> >> Caller's Evidence: >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> ID: 8988 >> Title: Rice rewrite >> Adoption index: 1.0 >> Author: Janet >> Co-authors: snail >> >> >> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole: >> { >> The Ricemastor is an office. >> >> Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership wholly >> restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in abeyance or is >> owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is destroyed. >> >> An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per week, >> specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice down set). >> When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in the rice up set >> gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each player in the rice >> down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's weekly report includes a list >> of rice plans. The creator of a rice plan CAN by announcement destroy >> it, thereby causing it to cease to be a rice plan. >> >> An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. An >> active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it or if a >> contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states that eir >> signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report includes, for each >> rice plan, a list of players with signatures on it. >> >> A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest occurs, >> the following happen in order: >> * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor of the >> earliest created), if any, is harvested. >> * All rice plans are destroyed. >> >> Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at least 2 >> rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, then all rice >> and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been won in this manner >> three times, this rule immediately repeals itself. >> } >> >> [ >> Changes: >> - Generally cleaned up wording >> - Handle rice at Lost and Found >> - Harvesting a plan now grants rice before revoking (handling the case >> where a person is in both the up and down sets) >> - Use "CAN" for enabling >> - Use a by announcement action or contract for signatures, rather than >> "consent" >> - Added a clarity requirement for contract-based signatures >> - Removed Fancy Caps >> ] >> >> ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 2682/1 (Power=1) >> The Rice Game >> >> The Ricemastor is an office. >> >> Rice is a fixed asset tracked by the Ricemastor, with ownership >> wholly restricted to players. If a rice would otherwise be in >> abeyance or is owned by the Lost and Found Department, it is >> destroyed. >> >> An active player CAN create a rice plan by announcement once per >> week, specifying two sets of players (the rice up set and the rice >> down set). When a rice plan is harvested, each active player in >> the rice up set gains one rice, then one rice is revoked from each >> player in the rice down set (if e has any). The Ricemastor's >> weekly report includes a list of rice plans. The creator of a rice >> plan CAN by announcement destroy it, thereby causing it to cease >> to be a rice plan. >> >> An active player CAN by announcement sign a specified rice plan. >> An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it >> or if a contract e is party to clearly and unambiguously states >> that eir signature is on it. The Ricemastor's weekly report >> includes, for each rice plan, a list of players with signatures on >> it. >> >> A harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When a harvest >> occurs, the following happen in order: >> * The rice plan with the most signatures (breaking ties in favor >> of the earliest created), if any, is harvested. >> * All rice plans are destroyed. >> >> Immediately after a harvest, if a single active player has at >> least 2 rice and more rice than any other player, e wins the game, >> then all rice and rice plans are destroyed. If the game has been >> won in this manner three times, this rule immediately repeals >> itself. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> [R2682/1 did not appear in any published ruleset. The purported R2682/2 >> did (under the incorrect belief that P8989 took effect), which differs >> from R2682/1 only in saying "at least 5 rice" in the final paragraph. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Gratuitous Arguments by G.: >> >> "Sign" is not an arbitrary word, but a word with a common definition >> in the context of documents (or document-like things such as Rice >> Plans). A perfectly common and natural definition of "signing" a >> thing is to add one's signature to the thing. In adjudicating Rule >> 2682/0 in CFJ 4032, before "sign" was explicitly in that rule, Judge >> ais523 literally uses the term as a direct and specific synonym for >> adding a signature to a plan under the old rule: >> >> > "a Rice Plan has X's signature" is a synonym for "X is consenting to >> > {the Rice Plan / the Rice Plan being signed}" >> >> Signatures were added to the plans in question under R2682/0 and not >> removed, so the plans were "signed" by common and obvious definition >> at the time of the change from R2682/0 to R2682/1. So when this text >> came into effect: >> >> > An active player's signature is on a rice plan if e has signed it >> >> The fact that those plans had been signed remained true under the new >> rule as well as the old (there was never a moment when it wasn't true, >> during that transition). >> >> ========================================================================== >> > > I find that this all hinges upon the final paragraph of the caller's > argument. > Rice plans are an entity, and "has an active player's Signature" > or "An active player's signature is on" is an attribute of that entity, > and thus, I find that R1586 is NOT irrelevant. > > Specifically, in R1586: > "If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it > defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but > with different attributes, then the second entity and its > attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under > the new definitions. > " > > The attributes of signatures of Rice Plans have not been changed > significantly enough to claim that previous signatures do not exist, > because it is very clearly possible for them to exist. > > To further address the caller's arguments, however: > In the first paragraph: Agreed, the new by announcement action of signing > could not have been performed before adoption. > And it can also be agreed that "having signed" was always in force before > adoption, as per the old ruling. > Thus, rice plans had an attribute before and after the proposal was > adopted, providing continuity, which is governed by R1586. > > In the second paragraph: I do not need to rule on the continuity of the > action itself, so I will not. It sounds complicated and irrelevant. > I would like to rule as they are continuous if it makes anyone feel > better, but I will not do so officially. > > I find the arguments by G to also be compelling, but mainly, R1586 has > provided a solid resolution to his conundrum. > > Thus, I judge this to be TRUE. > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > Deputy Herald and Deputy Prime Minister > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > er, typo: to THIS* conundrum. -- 4ˢᵗ Deputy Herald and Deputy Prime Minister Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
