From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Fri Feb 9 05:12:09 1996 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 FAA23321 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 05:12:08 -0600 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA12382; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:58:09 -0800 Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:58:09 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA12369 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:58:08 -0800 Received: from wing1.wing.rug.nl (wing1.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA12350 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 01:58:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199602090958.BAA12350@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing1.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA08738; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:57:01 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 849 Judgement: FALSE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Fri, 9 Feb 96 10:57:00 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO ---------------------------------------------------------------------- TIA disclaimer: This message has no legal effect and makes no claim on truth whatsoever in any Gamestate in which I am not CotC ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Judge: Andre (defaulted) Chuck Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Chuck, dcuman, favor, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Wes, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Morendil On Hold: Blob, Dave Bowen, elJefe 1005: Michael, Murphy, Pascal, Swann, Vanyel, Vlad Defaulted: Andre ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve, 23 January 1996, 17:18 +1100 (EST) Wrongly assigned to Steve, 23 January 1996, 12:57 MET Wrongly assigned to Swann, 24 January 1996, timestamp lost Assigned to Andre, 25 January 1996, 11:57 MET Defaulted by Andre, 2 February 1996, 11:57 MET Assigned to Chuck, 2 February 1996, 14:59 MET Judged FALSE by Chuck, 8 February 1996, 16:41 -0600 (CST) ====================================================================== Statement: Rule 113 should be interpreted such that a Player may only avoid incurring a penalty by deregistering, if the penalty has not yet been incurred. ====================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: My argument is based on a simple but powerful premise: that it is impossible to change the past, and impossible to act in the past (at least without a time travel machine). Since it makes no sense to speak of someone's right to do the impossible, Rule 113 cannot guarantee such a right. Rule 113 can guarantee a right to do only that which it is possible to do, namely, to avoid penalties not yet incurred by means of deregistration. It cannot guarantee a Player's right to avoid penalties already incurred: one cannot speak sensibly of avoiding the past. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: I Judge this statement to be FALSE. First, let me address Steve's argument: that the past cannot be changed. While it is true that the past cannot be changed in Real Life, there is nothing in the Rules that prohibits the past from being changed (in the general case; Rule 108 prohibits it in some specific cases.) And I can find no _ab initio_ reason why the past cannot be changed in Agora. Thus, if the Rules allow it, the past can be changed in Agora. Now we turn to the specific case of Rule 113. It seems to me that there are 3 possible interpretations: 1. A penalty may be avoided only by announcing one's deregistration before the penalty occurs. 2. A penalty, which one considers worse than deregistration, is avoided by deregistering before the penalty occurs, although the deregistration may not be announced until later. 3. A penalty which has already taken place may be retroactively avoided by deregistration. CFJ 847 rules out possibility #2, so we need not consider that. So is #1 or #3 the correct interpretation? Let's look again at 113: A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. Previous CFJs have rules that the second sentence does not stand alone, but rather must be interpreted in the light of the first sentence; that is, a Player cannot simply say, "That penalty is worse than deregistration, so it may not be imposed." A Player must actually deregister in order to avoid a penalty. Looking at the first sentence alone, it would seem that a penalty can only be avoided by deregistering before the penalty takes place. But this, in fact is exactly the opposite error made above!! Just as the second sentence is not interpreted in a vacuum, but must be considered in the light of the first sentence, the first sentence cannot be considered alone (even though at least one Player has explicitly advocated doing so), but must be considered in light of the second. We cannot simply ignore the sentence, "No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed." Since a penalty may often be applied without the knowledge of the Player it is being imposed on, I find the only possible interpretation is #3 above: it is possible to avoid a penalty in the past by deregistering. Some people will object that this leads to unpalatable results: how far in the past may a Player avoid a penalty? There seems to be no limit. Can a Player avoid a penalty in June 1993? If so, it's certainly not practical to go back and recompute the game state from then!! I reply that this is an unpleasant consequence; however, that is of no concern to this Judge, as it is the only reasonable interpretation. ====================================================================== Evidence: 1. Rule 113 2. Rule 108 (added by Judge) 3. CFJ 847 (excerpts) (added by Judge) Rule 113/1 (Semimutable, MI=3) Players May Always Forfeit A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. ===2. Rule 108 Rule 108/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) When May Rule Changes Take Effect? No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the adoption of the Proposal in which it is contained, if it is a proposed Rule Change, or the moment of the adoption of the current form of the Rule which requires the Rule Change, if it is a non-proposed Rule Change. No Rule Change may have retroactive application. ===3. CFJ 847 (excerpts) "The Rules should be interpreted that deregistration, by definition, when inintiated by the deregistering Player, occurs at the time the Player makes the request to deregister-- even when Rule 113 is invoked upon deregistration." Judge: Murphy (defaulted) favor Judgement: TRUE From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Mon Feb 19 05:34:27 1996 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 FAA14268 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 05:34:26 -0600 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id DAA09936; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 03:14:29 -0800 Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Mon, 19 Feb 1996 03:14:29 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id DAA09926 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 03:14:28 -0800 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 DAA09920 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 03:14:25 -0800 Message-Id: <199602191114.DAA09920@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA18684; Mon, 19 Feb 1996 12:13:06 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 849 Final Judgement: TRUE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 19 Feb 96 12:13:05 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO ====================================================================== CORRECTED ASSIGNMENT UPON APPEAL CFJ 849 "Rule 113 should be interpreted such that a Player may..." ====================================================================== Judge: Andre (defaulted) Chuck Judgement: FALSE Speaker: Kelly Judgement: FALSE CotC: Andre (must delegate eir duties) pro-CotC: favor Judgement: TRUE Justiciar: Steve (must delegate eir duties) pro-Justiciar: Michael Judgement: TRUE Final Judgement:TRUE Eligible: Coren, dcuman, Doug, elJefe, favor, Ghost, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Murphy, Swann, Wes, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Morendil On Hold: Blob, Dave Bowen 1005: Pascal, Vanyel, Vlad Defaulted: Andre Judged already: Chuck Effects: Andre gains 3 Blots for defaulting Chuck gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Kelly gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Michael gains 3 Points for timely Judgement Chuck loses 3 Points for being overturned ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve, 23 January 1996, 17:18 +1100 (EST) Wrongly assigned to Steve, 23 January 1996, 12:57 MET Wrongly assigned to Swann, 24 January 1996, timestamp lost Assigned to Andre, 25 January 1996, 11:57 MET Defaulted by Andre, 2 February 1996, 11:57 MET Assigned to Chuck, 2 February 1996, 14:59 MET Judged FALSE by Chuck, 8 February 1996, 16:41 -0600 (CST) Appealed by Steve, 10 February 1996, 02:27 +1100 Appealed by elJefe, 9 February 1996, 10:33 -0500 Appealed by Michael, 9 February 1996, 15:48 GMT Delegated by Steve to Michael, 12 February 1996, timestamp lost Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, 13 February 1996, 15:33 MET Assigned to Andre as CotC, 13 February 1996, 15:33 MET Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, 13 Febrary 1996, 15:33 MET Judged FALSE by Kelly, 16 February 1996, 01:19 EST5 Delegated by Andre to favor, 16 February 1996, 16:08 MET Judged TRUE by favor, 16 February 1996, 10:20 EST Judged TRUE by Michael, 19 February 1996, 10:10 GMT ====================================================================== Statement: Rule 113 should be interpreted such that a Player may only avoid incurring a penalty by deregistering, if the penalty has not yet been incurred. ====================================================================== Reasons and Arguments: My argument is based on a simple but powerful premise: that it is impossible to change the past, and impossible to act in the past (at least without a time travel machine). Since it makes no sense to speak of someone's right to do the impossible, Rule 113 cannot guarantee such a right. Rule 113 can guarantee a right to do only that which it is possible to do, namely, to avoid penalties not yet incurred by means of deregistration. It cannot guarantee a Player's right to avoid penalties already incurred: one cannot speak sensibly of avoiding the past. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: I Judge this statement to be FALSE. First, let me address Steve's argument: that the past cannot be changed. While it is true that the past cannot be changed in Real Life, there is nothing in the Rules that prohibits the past from being changed (in the general case; Rule 108 prohibits it in some specific cases.) And I can find no _ab initio_ reason why the past cannot be changed in Agora. Thus, if the Rules allow it, the past can be changed in Agora. Now we turn to the specific case of Rule 113. It seems to me that there are 3 possible interpretations: 1. A penalty may be avoided only by announcing one's deregistration before the penalty occurs. 2. A penalty, which one considers worse than deregistration, is avoided by deregistering before the penalty occurs, although the deregistration may not be announced until later. 3. A penalty which has already taken place may be retroactively avoided by deregistration. CFJ 847 rules out possibility #2, so we need not consider that. So is #1 or #3 the correct interpretation? Let's look again at 113: A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. Previous CFJs have rules that the second sentence does not stand alone, but rather must be interpreted in the light of the first sentence; that is, a Player cannot simply say, "That penalty is worse than deregistration, so it may not be imposed." A Player must actually deregister in order to avoid a penalty. Looking at the first sentence alone, it would seem that a penalty can only be avoided by deregistering before the penalty takes place. But this, in fact is exactly the opposite error made above!! Just as the second sentence is not interpreted in a vacuum, but must be considered in the light of the first sentence, the first sentence cannot be considered alone (even though at least one Player has explicitly advocated doing so), but must be considered in light of the second. We cannot simply ignore the sentence, "No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed." Since a penalty may often be applied without the knowledge of the Player it is being imposed on, I find the only possible interpretation is #3 above: it is possible to avoid a penalty in the past by deregistering. Some people will object that this leads to unpalatable results: how far in the past may a Player avoid a penalty? There seems to be no limit. Can a Player avoid a penalty in June 1993? If so, it's certainly not practical to go back and recompute the game state from then!! I reply that this is an unpleasant consequence; however, that is of no concern to this Judge, as it is the only reasonable interpretation. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Speaker: The Statement of CFJ 849 is trivially false. There are any of a number of ways in which a Player might avoid a penalty other than deregistering, even under the current Rules. One such method would be to arrange for the Rules to have been amended such that the penalty is not able to be incurred at the time it would otherwise have been incurred. This may not be possible in all circumstances, but it conceivably could be in some, and I cannot grant the truth of an unqualified statement if there exists even one possible circumstance under which it is not true. Rule 113 does not prohibit a Player from avoiding a Penalty without deregistering; it merely allows a Player to deregister to avoid a penalty. Since there exist (potential) means to avoid a penalty without deregistering, the Statement is FALSE. I therefore uphold Chuck's Judgement. Kelly Martin, Speaker, Agora Nomic -- ====================================================================== Judgement, Pro-CotC: TRUE Reasons and Arguments, Pro-CotC: First of all, I should make clear that I am interpreting the Statement to mean Rule 113 should be interpreted such that a Player may (do X) only if (Y), where X is "avoid incurring a penalty by deregistering", and Y is "the penalty has not yet been incurred". Under other parsings of the slightly-ambiguous statement, it might have other truth-values. Parts of the meaning of Rule 113 are uncontroversial. The question at issue here is whether or not it allows a Player to deregister in order to avoid a penalty which has already been imposed. On the fact of it, this seems absurd: how could *any* Rule allow someone to prevent something which has already happened? At first glance, the Statement therefore seems TRUE. But we must consider the arguments of Judge Chuck. While it may seem unusual to allow the past to be changed, he says, if the Rules say that it can be, then it can be. How convincing is this? First, does Rule 113 even attempt to do this, to make the past malleable? It's not entirely clear. The origins of Rule 113 were in face-to-face Nomic, where the question would not ordinarily come up; it was assumed that one would always have time to shout "Wait, I deregister, don't hit me with the gourd again!". In face-to-face Nomic, where the action is closely tied to the Real World, it would clearly be impossible for any Rule to allow one to change the past. Is Agora further from the Real World, far enough that we can, within the framework of the Game, do the impossible? Consider: what would be the implications of a Rule that said "Concrete is lighter than air" or "Seven is not prime". Would these Rules be functional? Would concrete float once they were passed? Well, real-life concrete would remain steadfastly fixed to the ground; we could define a Nomic Entity called Concrete, of course, and do with it whatever we liked. But seven would remain prime, even within the Game; no attempt to divide it into equal integers greater than one and less than seven would succeed. Is the fixedness of the past more like the non-bouyancy of concrete, or more like the primality of seven? The Rules make no attempt to define a within-game notion of time that is distinct from the real-world flow. When the Rules refer to times, they refer to real-world times. A day is a day, a week is a week. There is not even a Rule that would temporarily decouple Game time to the extent of allowing a Christmas pause; so many Rules refer to real-world time that it would be difficult to enact such a thing. We can only conclude that Agoran time is just real-world time. The past of Agora is the past of the real world. The past of the real world cannot be changed. Therefore the past of Agora cannot be changed. Once a penalty has been imposed, it is too late to make it never have been imposed. It is too late to avoid it. It is, of course, *not* too late to adjust the *current* gamestate to look the way it would have if the penalty had never been imposed, but that's different. It's also not too late to discover that we were mistaken, and the penalty was never in fact imposed. But if the penalty *has* in fact been incurred, that fact is fixed in the flow of time, the flow that moves both Agora and the (rest of the) real world. The Statement is therefore TRUE. To the extent that the Rules allow me to do so, I instruct the Rulekeepor to annotate Rule 113 accordingly (I'm not sufficiently conversant with the Injunction Rules to know whether or not this has legal force; my apologies). Respectfully submitted, Pro-CotC Favor ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Justiciar: Judgement: TRUE Argument: Given our normal understanding of time, the only way in which this statement could be false would be if Agora redefined the notion of time so that it was possible to change the past. The original Judge felt compelled to conclude that this was indeed the case, but as my fellow Appeal Justice favor has pointed out, there is no reason to assume that Agora has redefined the nature of time in this way. Agora does not exist in a vacuum, so without some clear indication in the rules that we are playing with a special Agora-time entity, we must conclude that the nature of time is such that the past can not be changed. Nor can the original Judge's arguments be said to lead us to the conclusion that "Agora time" must be different from "real world time". Much is made in the original judgement of the second sentence of R113, "No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed." The tenses of the verbs in this sentence make it clear that a penalty may not be imposed on a Player, if, before it is imposed, the Player decides that it is one worse than deregistration. In particular, the sentence does not say "in the judgement of the Player who incurred it". ----- Michael. ====================================================================== Evidence: 1. Rule 113 2. Rule 108 (added by Judge) 3. CFJ 847 (excerpts) (added by Judge) Rule 113/1 (Semimutable, MI=3) Players May Always Forfeit A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. ===2. Rule 108 Rule 108/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) When May Rule Changes Take Effect? No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the adoption of the Proposal in which it is contained, if it is a proposed Rule Change, or the moment of the adoption of the current form of the Rule which requires the Rule Change, if it is a non-proposed Rule Change. No Rule Change may have retroactive application. ===3. CFJ 847 (excerpts) "The Rules should be interpreted that deregistration, by definition, when inintiated by the deregistering Player, occurs at the time the Player makes the request to deregister-- even when Rule 113 is invoked upon deregistration." Judge: Murphy (defaulted) favor Judgement: TRUE