>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Fri Oct 27 08:18:53 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA14967 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:18:46 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAB02736 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:12:30 -0700 Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA02694 for ; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:12:20 -0700 Message-Id: <199510271312.GAA02694@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA11818; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:11:51 +0100 >From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 815: Judgement To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 14:11:51 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ####################################################################### Assignment CFJ 815 "Rule 1011 should be interpreted such that, if an amendment is made to the Rules governing the properties of any Game Entity, that all such Game Entities have their properties changed to conform to the amendment." ====================================================================== Judge: favor Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, favor, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, SugarWater, Vanyel, Vlad, wutold, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Swann Barred: elJefe, Kelly, Steve On Hold: Garth, JonRock Effects: favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, 26 Oct 1995, 02:04 -0400 Asssigned to favor, 26 Oct 1995, timestamp lost Judged TRUE by favor, 27 Oct 1995, 08:47 EDT ####################################################################### Argument: There has been made an argument that since the Rules Governing Groups have been amended substantially, that any Groups formed under the old Rules cease to exist-- or at least cease to have any effect vis-a-vis the Game of Agora. It is my contention that there is nothing to support this view, and in fact, the oft-referenced 1011 actually forbids such an interpretation. Before the adoption of 1760, there was a class of Entities known as Groups the contention is that, since 1760 made wholesale changes to the Entitie known as Groups, that the incompatibly-formed prior Groups ceased to exist. This is in direct contradiction with 1011! >From 1011: Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. What Rule specifies the destruction of the old Groups? None. Certainly the amendments in 1760 say nothing about repealing the legal authority of prior Groups. Any such diminishment of prior Groups is an arbitrary change, wholly outside the authority of the Ruleset, and therefore void. And, since Groups themselves are still a defined Entity in the Ruleset, and there was no period of time where Groups were not defined, any alleged discontinuity is addressed by 1011. The Rules changed the way Groups were defined, therefore the Entities known as Groups changed their properties, because that is the only option specified by the Rules. ====================================================================== Arguments Judge: I approach this CFJ with some trepidation, as it touches on deep and largely unvisited areas of Agora metaphysics and ontology. The fact that it is a CFJ on the interpretation of a specific Rule, though, limits its scope enough that I have some hope of dealing adequately with the questions raised, in this limited context. The issues underlying the truth or falsehood of the Statement concern the nature of the relationship between the Rules of Agora and the rest of the Game state; in particular, between the Rules that define and govern Game Entities and instances of the Entities themselves, especially as the Rules change over time. The fact that the Rules do in fact change over time complicates the relationship enormously. So what does in fact happen to an existing Game Entity when the Rules that govern its properties (its nature, its description, its relationship to the rest of the Game) change? The Statement requires us, in particular, to consider whether or not the Entity changes to conform to the amendment; that is, whether or not the Entity changes in such a way that the new version of the Rules correctly describes it. There seem to be three possiblities here, for any particular Entity and any particular Rule change: a) The Entity might remain unchanged, despite the change to the Rules. This seems unlikely, though, as the Entity would then be in violation of the Rules; for a Platonist, this is flatly impossible, whereas for a Pragmatist it is at least a mistake. While there is no Rule that explictly says that all Entities must conform to the Rules, such a Rule seems unnecessary: it is essential to the Rules being Rules that the Entities they create must at all times conform to them. So this possibility is not to be taken seriously. b) The Entity might change, so as to be in conformance with the new state of the Rules. This seems relatively unproblematic. For some Entities and some Rule changes, of course, the only change to the Entity that would bring it (or the Game state as a whole) into conformance with the Rules would be for it to cease to exist. If, for instance, the Rules governing a particular Entity were to be amended so as to be completely different, and describe some other Entities with no properties in common with the Entities they previously defined (or to define no Entities at all), it would be foolish to place great weight on the simple fact of an unchanging Rule number. Similarly, if all the Rules that provide for an Entity to exist at all are repealed without simultaneous replacement, the only permissible change would seem to be destruction. But in general, there will be some lesser change to the existing Entities that will bring them into conformance with the Rules while still allowing them to exist. Ideal Rule Changes will of course specify exactly what changes should occur to existing Entities to bring them into conformance with the new Rules for that type of Entity. But where the Rules are silent on the issue, for whatever reason, the issue must be settled in some other way; by, for instance, the Courts (per Rule 217 and family), or simply the rational consensus of the Players. c) The Entity might simply cease to exist, or cease to be an Entity of the type that it formerly was, by virtue of the change to its governing Rules, despite the fact that a less-drastic change could have brought it into conformance with the new Rules. There seems to be little reason to adopt this strategy, however, and a Judge called upon to decide on the fate of some pre-existing Entities in a case where the new Rules are silent on the issue of conformance-chanes would be well-advised to consider it only as a last resort, as suggested in the previous paragraph. What light is thrown on the above musings by Game Custom and previous Judgements? Surprisingly little. The Potato CFJ, for instance, which at first seems relevant at least to the issue that led to this CFJ, is in fact not relevant to the present Statement, since that case did not involve a change to Rules that governed the properties of a pre-existing Game Entity. It was, in particular, the finding of the Judge that there was no pre-existing Game Entity of the type governed by the new Rule. That case also involved a newly-created Rule, not an amendment as the current Statement specifies. The Judgement held that a previously- existing Entity which had been given a particular name by a Player acting within the Rules did not simply by virtue of this name take on the properties of a similarly-named Entity later created by a new Rule; this raises issues in the same general area as the current question, but not close enough to shed any light on the current Statement itself. Game Custom clearly teaches that at least *some* of the properties of an Entity are implicitly changed when the Rules governing those properties are changed. There are countless examples; Rules on Kudos, Points, Marks, Contests, and so on have all been changed, without any suggestion that the pre-existing Entities of that class should therefore cease to exist. At first glance, this might seem to give us our answer without further effort, but while I think it is extremely suggestive and helpful, it is not entirely final. I have been unable to find a very strong example of a deep and fundamental change to the nature of a pre-existing Entity being caused by a change to the governing Rule in the absence of a "grandfather" clause. Such a finding would have been conclusive that (b) above is the correct consequence of even such deep changes. On the other hand, I found no cases on the other side, either, of Entities ceasing to exist when they could have been changed instead. So on balance (b) still seems the heavy favorite. Having determined, so far, that (b) seems correct, and that the Rules and Game Custom (not to speak of common sense) favor the truth of the dependant clause in the Statement, what shall we make of the Statement as a whole? Does the truth of the dependant clause in fact rest on interpretation of Rule 1011? The Argument presented by the Caller deals mainly with the application of the Statement to a particular issue that is currently before the Agoran Public. Since the statement itself does not mention that issue, however, no Judgement on the issue itself is required. The Argument does, however, illustrate how Rule 1011 comes into consideration. It would be possible to interpret 1011 so as to prohibit (b) above (that interpretation would also, as far as I can tell, prohibit (c), and we'd be in a fine mess). If the correct interpretation of 1011 does prohibit (b), then, the Statement should be judged FALSE. Otherwise, it is TRUE. Under what circumstances would 1011 prohibit the changes to Game Entities suggested in (b)? 1011 prohibits any changes to certain types of Entity, if those changes are caused "by any action other than those specified by the Rules". Could the changes suggested in (b) be a change of the type thus prohibited? The changes in (b) are caused by a change to the Rules. That isn't an action, though, so since causation is transitive we continue to follow the chain. Changes to the Rules are caused by various actions, and (by Rule 116) the only actions which can cause changes to the Rules are actions that are permitted by (which will do as a synonym for "specified by" in this context) the Rules. So: the actions which cause the changes suggested in (b) are actions specified by the Rules; therefore, Rule 1011 does not prohibit those changes. This, along with the considerations of Game Custom and so on outlined above, lead us to conclude that the Statement in this CFJ is TRUE. Respectfully Submitted, ####################################################################### Evidence: Rule 1011/0 Rule 217/2 (added by Judge) Rule 116/0 (added by Judge) ---------------------------------------- Rule 1011/0 (Semimutable, MI=2) Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname. (*Was: 450*) History: Created by Proposal 450, Sep. 10 1993 Amended by Proposal 1011, Sep. 5 1994 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1593, Jun. 2 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 217/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Judgements Must Accord with the Rules All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the Spirit of the Game and past Judgements before applying other standards. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. History: Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995 Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Permissibility of the Unprohibited Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it. History: Initial Immutable Rule 116, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1483, Mar. 15 1995 ----------------------------------------