Additionally, in the FALSE case, the judge has been asked to clarify what should occur: This is an unofficial opinion of what should occur, but: amendments to TRWC105T would be too ambiguous to enact changes. Firstly, a something that is not a rule but was once a rule is untracked and has the rule/ID number 105. Secondly, a rule that has no ID number exists. Unfortunately, this means that references to "Rule 105" would therefore be too ambiguous to be adopted: specifically, a proposal would say "re-enact rule 105" just as much as it would say "amend rule 105" and the intent would refer to two different Rule 105's, one being a non-rule with ID 105 and one being a rule without an ID.
This would also mean that the rulesets that also contain the text "An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified" (such as the Jun 2020 ruleset post P8914) would be unable to ratify at all, as TRWC105T would exist in that ruleset. Fortunately, I don't think that is in the scope of this judgement, as ID numbers and Rule numbers appear to be different. On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 2:47 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > READY FOR A (small) ROLLERCOASTER?!?! > > Statement to judge: "There exists a rule 105." > > Short context for this: "Rule number" 105 was repealed and reenacted in > 2007, and in 2020, rules were required to have unique "ID numbers". > > SIGNIFICANTLY, the number assigned to that Rule 105 was not an "ID number", > it was just a "rule number" per Rule 1681/8, "Fantasy Rule Changes", and > the preceding Rule 105 and the succeeding Rule 105. > > HOWEVER, is that it's reasonable to believe that "ID number" and "rule > number" are in fact the same number, as they are used in the same contexts > and for the same reasons. In that case, therefore, ID number 105 had > already had an assignment, and for the new Rule 2141 defined by 8416, this > took away it's number, leaving a hole. Without further evidence that "ID > number" and "rule number" are the same, I will say that they are different. > In particular, evidence would be, say that rules have been re-enacted > across this change in nomenclature. If there indeed exists such evidence, > then we should duly judge this FALSE, as it would be prohibited to assign > it ID number 105. Should this evidence be found, it would affect the > application of proposals specifying "rule 105" since the adoption of > proposal 8416. > > PLEASE NOTE, unfortunately, no mechanism is actually provided for the > Rulekeepor to officially assign numbers to rules, and as the Rulekeepor > must track rule/ID numbers, this means it is a game action and is REGULATED > under the 2020 ruleset. This level of regulating of actions did not exist > in the 2007 ruleset, so "rule number" 105 exists both before and after > Proposal 4984. > > FORTUNATELY, the ruleset has been ratified at some point, which is a > mechanism to assign ID numbers, so it would appear that Rule 105 being > assigned ID number 105 occurred at one of those ratifications, unless of > course it would be impossible for that rule to have ID number 105 due to > evidence that "rule numbers" and "ID numbers" are the same. > > THEREFORE, without further evidence to the contrary, > > Here it be judged TRUE that there exists a rule with ID number 105. > > SHOULD IT BE FOUND the evidence to the contrary, then there is more quantum > bullshit to observe about applications of amendments to Rule ID number 105, > and this case should be judged FALSE. > > *Please note that under the "working" ruleset, new rules DO NOT technically > have ID numbers until ratified, since there is no mechanism to assign ID > numbers otherwise, as ID numbers are regulated under Rule 2125.* > > Proposal that repealed a rule with "rule number" 105: > https://randomnetcat.github.io/agora-historical-proposals/4894.txt > > Proposal that forced "ID numbers" to be unique among all current and > previous rules: > https://agoranomic.org/assessor/proposal/8416.txt > > Ruleset prior to Proposal 4894: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002755.html > > Ruleset Prior to 8914: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-June/013737.html > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
