====================================================================== CFJ 1067 The sentence "If this leads to a Voting Period that is shorter than three days, the Voting Period shall instead last for three days or until two days before the InterNomic Voting Period on the relevant InterNomic Proposal is over, whichever is earliest." has been added to the third paragraph of R1632. ====================================================================== Judge: General Chaos Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Calabresi, ChrisM, Crito, elJefe, General Chaos, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vlad Not eligible: Caller: Kolja A. Barred: Chuck On request: Vanyel On hold: Harlequin, Vir ====================================================================== History: Called by Kolja A., 4 Nov 1997 14:44:00 +0100 Assigned to General Chaos, 6 Nov 1997 12:07:19 +0100 Judged FALSE, 10 Nov 1997 23:07:21 -0500 ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: The rulekeepor's argument is quoted in the evidence. I disagree with this argument for two reasons: - While I admit that the verb "append" would have been clearer than the verb "add" it still is obvious to me (as a non-native speaker, of course) that the proposal is to append the given sentence to the third paragraph of 1632. I therefore would like to apply 754 (as "dialect", maybe? It's not a typo, of course) to clarify the meaning of P3575. - I think that to call this provision ambiguous is hairsplitting at best. While this may be considered in keeping with the spirit of Nomic by some, I consider it a superfluous complication in this case. Grammatically, the only sensible position for the new sentence is at the end of the third paragraph of 1632. However, except for a weird wording, no consequences would arise from adding the sentence at the beginning of the paragraph. Adding it elswhere would just be nonsense. I do not consider the rulekeepor a mindless word processor. E is not told how to indent the rules, either; nor are there provisions for the form and details of annotations. In fact, even the division of rules into paragrpahs is not mandated anywhere in the rules. So game custom also does treat the rulekeepor not as a word processor, but as a human player who can understand what e is doing and interpret proposals like 3575 as human language with a meaning. This is why the rulekeepor is an officer and not a perl script, after all. While I admit that a computer program could find P3575 ambiguous, a human shouldn't. Kolja A. P.S. Of course, I hope strongly that noone will feel offended by my arguments, especially Chuck. Certainly this is not my intention. I consider this more a question of game custom and the spirit of the game, but wanted to resolve it formally, too, and not delay this CFJ until the end of a lengthy discussion on a-d. I would welcome contributions to such a discussion from everyone interested, though. ====================================================================== Evidence: 1. Proposal 3575 2. Parts of the message announcing the adoption of P3575 3. Statement of the Rulekeepor why e refused to apply this amendment (e agreed to make this discussion public, so I hope e doesn't mind my using this private mail) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Proposal 3575: Proposal 3575 (Kolja A.) AI = 1 (Disinterested) Fix Internomic referenda Amend 1632 by adding the following sentence to the third paragraph (Duration of Voting): If this leads to a Voting Period that is shorter than three days, the Voting Period shall instead last for three days or until two days before the InterNomic Voting Period on the relevant InterNomic Proposal is over, whichever is earliest. --- [Note that, if this still does not lead to a voting period of a positive length, the Ambassador has clearly failed to distribute the proposal ASAP, according to 1632.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Parts of the message announcing the adoption of P3575: >> AGORA NOMIC OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR OCTOBER 30, 1997 Results of Proposals 3569-3576 ====================================================================== Voting for 3569-3575 commenced: Mon Oct 20 14:30:58 1997 Voting for 3569-3575 concluded: Thu Oct 30 14:30:58 1997 At the commencement of the Voting Periods of Proposals 3569-3575 there were 18 Registered Players: 18 Active, 0 On Hold. Therefore the Quorum for these Proposals is 9 (Rule 879/5). [snip] D 3575 Kolja A. 1 Fix Internomic referenda PASSES 5-0-0-8 [snip] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Statement of the Rulekeepor why e refused to apply this amendment: -- Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 13:41:06 -0600 (CST) In-Reply-To: 9711031901.aa1690-@spinup.tp3.ruhr-uni-bochum.de from "Klaus Herrmanns NB6_25 (3751)" at Nov 3, 97 08:01:23 pm From: "Charles E. Carroll" ccarrol-@dfw.net [some headers removed] Klaus Herrmanns NB6_25 (3751) wrote: Dear Chuck, * Proposal 3575's attempted Amendment of 1632 ineffective, due to ambiguity (cf. R594). << Could you briefly tell me what went wrong here? [From 3575:] Amend 1632 by adding the following sentence to the third paragraph It doesn't say where in the third paragraph the sentence is to be added. Chuck -- ====================================================================== Judge's Arguments: This case concerns the effectiveness of an attempted amendment to Rule by Proposal 3575, which stated that a sentence was to be "added" to a given paragraph of Rule 1632. The Rulekeepor stipulates that the term "added" is ambiguous, in that it does not specify where the sentence is to be added. Petitioner Kolja A. asserts that the obvious intent of the proposal is to append the specified sentence, and that the term "add" should be taken as a gloss for "append". This Court holds that such a gloss, while probably appropriate in this case, is inconsistent with Rule 1339. Proposal 3575, adopted Thursday, October 30th and engrossed later that same day, sought to amend Rule 1632 by "adding" a sentence to the end of the third paragraph. Rulekeepor Chuck, in his announcement of Rule Changes due to Proposals 3555-3576, announced that Proposal 3575 failed to amend Rule 1632 due to ambiguity, citing Rule 594 as basis for his conclusion. Upon query, Rulekeepor Chuck stated that the amendment "doesn't say where in the third paragraph the sentence is to be added." Petitioner Kolja A. (also the author of Proposal 3575) argues in his petition that the clear intent of the Proposal is that the specified sentence be appended to the specified paragraph, and seeks to invoke Rule 754 to take "add" as a gloss for "append" in this case. This Court rejects this notion. Rule 754 is only invokable when there is no ambiguity in meaning. "Add" is not an unambiguous substitute for "append". Prepending would also be a form of "adding", and clearly prepending and appending are not substitutable for each other. This Court therefore feels that the suggested gloss would act to disambiguate and is thus not permitted by Rule 754. Petitioner further argues that the only interpretation of this Rule Change which would make the Rule make sense grammatically is to append the suggested sentence. However, this Court sees no reason to introduce a principle that Rule Changes must be interpreted in the fashion which "makes the most sense." It is not the place of the Rulekeepor to impose rationality on the Electorate's decisions, and if the Electorate chooses to amend a Rule into a form which is gramatically contorted or otherwise foolishly constructed, the Rulekeepor is not entitled to "reinterpret" their intent so as to avoid that situation. This Court reflects that, for a time, due to an error in specification, two paragraphs of either Rule 1434 or Rule 1445 read identically; would Petitioner grant the Rulekeepor the power to ignore the written word of the Proposal and amend the "intended" paragraph instead? The entire purpose of Rule 1339 is to forestall any consideation of which interpretation is intended; if it's not absolutely clear, the amendment is ineffective. Nor is Petitioner's argument that the Rulekeepor is permitted to reformat paragraphs and otherwise manipulate the appearance of Rules convincing. Rule 1339 specifically exempts capitalization and whitespace from its exactness requirement, suggesting that these things should not be taken as significant in statutory construction. The Rulekeepor's modification of these things should not not, therefore, affect the meaning of the Rules, and is therefore reasonably permissible (although this Court would likely frown upon the Rulekeepor were he to arbitrarily capitalize words within Rules in the manner of his predecessor, and this opinion should be in no way taken to hold that the Rulekeepor has an unlimited power to change the capitalization of words within Rules). The scope of this privilege cannot reasonably be extended to include moving clauses or sentences about within the text of a Rule, however; nor should it be extended to include the power to disambiguate an ambiguously specified R ule Change, even when one particular disambiguation is clearly preferable over the other options. While this Court is sympathetic to Petitioner's argument, it is clearly foreclosed by Rule 1339. The determination of the Rulekeepor is affirmed. Judgement of FALSE is entered. ======================================================================