From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Fri Mar 8 11:10:01 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 LAA11363 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:09:56 -0600 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA14156; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:57:48 -0800 Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:57:45 -0800 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id IAA14088 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:57:43 -0800 Received: from torii.triple-i.com (torii.triple-i.com [192.94.150.1]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA13876 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:57:23 -0800 Received: from siesta (siesta+.triple-i.com [192.94.150.7]) by torii.triple-i.com (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id IAA07779 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 1996 08:56:45 -0800 Received: from pak by siesta (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA07339; Fri, 8 Mar 96 08:56:43 PST Date: Fri, 8 Mar 96 08:56:43 PST From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9603081656.AA07339@siesta> Received: by pak (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA17415; Fri, 8 Mar 96 08:56:43 PST To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: Final Judgement of Appeal of CFJ 858: FALSE Cc: jlc@triple-i.com Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO ====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF APPEAL CFJ 858 Rule 1482 should be interpreted such that the meaning of a word used in a Rule is a part of the Rule's meaning, and therefore cannot be changed significantly by Rules of lower precedence. ====================================================================== Board of Appeals: Decision: favor FALSE elJefe FALSE Steve FALSE Final Judgement: FALSE Original Judge: Coren Original Judgement: TRUE Caller: Zefram Barred: On Hold: Blob Eligible: Andre, Coren, dcuman, Doug, elJefe, favor, Gecko, Ghost, Greycell, Jtael, Kelly, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Steve, Swann, Vanyel elJefe, Steve, and favor earn a judicial salary for appeals judgement. Coren's salary for original judgement is cancelled. ====================================================================== History: Called by Zefram, 15 February 1996, 09:43 +0000 (GMT) Assigned to Chuck, 15 February 1996, 10:45 MET Defaulted by Chuck, 22 February 1996, 10:45 MET Assigned to Coren, Wed, 28 Feb 96 06:04:54 PST Judged TRUE by Coren, Tue, 5 Mar 1996 10:14:55 -0800 (PST) Appealed by Kelly, Tue, 5 Mar 96 13:56:24 EST5 Appealed by elJefe, Tue, 5 Mar 96 12:33:44 PST Appealed by Steve, Wed, 06 Mar 1996 17:24:19 +1100 (EST) Assigned to favor as Speaker, Wed, 6 Mar 96 06:43:54 PST Assigned to elJefe as CotC, Wed, 6 Mar 96 06:43:54 PST Assigned to Steve as Justiciar, Wed, 6 Mar 96 06:43:54 PST Judged FALSE by favor, Thu, 7 Mar 96 11:35:22 EST Judged FALSE by Steve, Fri, 08 Mar 1996 13:07:30 +1100 (EST) Judged FALSE by elJefe, Fri, 8 Mar 96 08:52:32 PST ====================================================================== Requested Injunction: The Relevant Rules are 1030 and 1482. I request that the Judge issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Ruleset with the Statement. -zefram ====================================================================== Decision of Judge Coren: TRUE And Coren saith unto him, "What is meaning?", and is very tempted to wash his hands of this mess. ;) Instead, he refuses to release Barrabas, since there's enough thieves wandering Agora at the moment. This statement is actually composed of two parts, both of which must be true for the Statement to be True: 1) "...the meaning of a word used in a Rule is part of the Rule's meaning..." and 2) "...[a Rule's meaning] cannot be changed significantly by Rules of lower precedence." Both of these parts are intended to be applied against the Precedence Rules, particularly 1482: ---------------------------------------- Rule 1482/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Precedence Between Rules with Unequal MI's In a conflict between Rules with different Mutability Indices, the Rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. History: Created by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 Infected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995 ---------------------------------------- This Judge will treat each of these two parts of the Statement in turn. *** PART THE FIRST: *** "...the meaning of a word used in a Rule is part of the Rule's meaning..." By far the easier of the two, if rather circular and indirect. A Rule is nowhere defined in the Rules themselves; however, it is self-evident that the Rules, individually and as a whole, have a specific meaning expressed within the common language of the Game - if they did not, both past and future play would be (have been) impossible. Within the common language of thhe Game (currently English), Rules are made up paragraphs, sentences, sentence fragments, and individual words, each of which is composed of one or more words, which can be defined as the smallest units of language that communicate a meaning. The meaning of each higher level is defined by the interaction of the meanings of the words which make it up: thus, changing the meaning of a word within one of those levels (including Rule) changes that meaning, and is part of it. Therefore, this part of the Statement is trivially True. *** PART THE SECOND: *** 2) "...[a Rule's meaning] cannot be changed significantly by Rules of lower precedence." Slightly more complicated; however: 1) This judge refuses to use R101 as an argument, since it is clear that R101 only refers to the Rules as an integral unit. 2) R116 says that changing the Rules is "...permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." So changing a Rule by changing that Rule's meaning must be permitted somewhere else in the Rules. 3) R1497 (Truth in Advertising) prevents a Player from deliberately misconstruing the content of a Rule if it results in some sort of required message, or in a post to the public forum. This in most cases prevents a Player purposefully changing the meaning of a Rule without changing the wording. 4) This means that the only way a Rule can be changed in this way is through a Rule Change, controlled by R105, which states the types of Rule changes permissable, of which the only one applicable is an Amendment Rule Change, and through R1339, which defines Proposed Rule Changes and Non-Propoosed Rule Changes. Either of these can be used to change the meaning of a Rule through changing its wording; however, such Rule Changes (of either type) are ineffectual and incapable of changing a Rule unless they are in a Proposal of an AI/MI equal to that of the Rule in question, or derive from such a Proposal or Rule. This leaves one final potential argument: that the "inherent meaning" of word *within the context of Agora* can be redefined by a low MI Rule, and change the meaning of that word everywhere else in the game, including in higher MI Rules. The corolary to point One is that such an attempt indeed changes the meaning of the Rule in question, and thus would conflict with R116, which prohibits changing a Rule in any way not defined by the Ruleset. This mannner of change could not be the result of an non-Rule Entity (which defers to all Rules in matters of precedence); the other way to do it would be with a Non-proposed Rule Change - which must be of an AI/MI such that its Power is high enough to affect the Rule in question, per R1322. Thus, the second part of the Statement is also TRUE, which leads to the conclusion that this entire CFJ must be Judged ***TRUE***. Note that this in the future could be changed by creating a new type of Rule Change explicitly or implicitly allowing this type of change, or by mutating a Rule making such a change possible to a higher MI that the rule defining permissable Rule Changes (no such Rule currently exists). Note that it could also be argued that such a change in meaning is impermissible under the Rule prohibiting arbitrary changes to Entities, since a cursory overview of the Rules in question leads me to believe that Rules are indeed Nomic Entities. The text of the applicable Rules are listed below. Judge Coren ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1497/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Truth in Advertising No Player shall present, as correct, information which e believes to be incorrect in any of the following: -a post to the Public Forum -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement -a response to a request for information which the Player is required to provide. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. A Player who violates this Rule commits a Class B Crime. [CFJ 827: If it is not clear that information is *not* presented as correct, it is. Attempting an illegal move can, if the Player reports the move and knows it to be illegal, be a violation of this Rule.] History: Created by Proposal 1667, Aug. 18 1995 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 10 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 2043, Dec. 11 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 105/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) What Is a Rule Change? A Rule Change is any of the following: 1) the enactment of a new Rule (a "Creation"). ; 2) the amendment of an existing Rule (an "Amendment"); 3) the repeal of an existing Rule (a "Repeal"); 4) the modification of an existing Rule's Mutability Index (a "Mutation"). Additional Rule Changes may be created by appropriate legislation. No Rule Change may directly change any part of the Game State other than the Rules. No Rule may be changed except by the means of a Rule Change of a type specified in the Rules. [CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule Change.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1339/3 (Semimutable, MI=3) Rule Changes There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating, Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the result of the effect or action of a Rule. All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following constraints: An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule. Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly identify the Number of the Rule to be affected. Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1. If the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not specified, it shall be 1. Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the Category to which the New Rule will be assigned. If the Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that Category. If the Category specified does not exist, or no Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to an appropriate category of eir own choice. Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule must clearly specify the new value of the Rule's Mutability Index. Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would permit such differences, even if the differences would be considered inconsequential by such Rules. Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not have any legal force. [CFJ 822: Any Change to the Rules in a way other than the two methods described here is illegal.] History: Created by Proposal 1339, Nov. 29 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1414, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, Feb. 21 1995 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 1532, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1322/2 (Semimutable, MI=3) Effectiveness of Rule Changes Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called its Power, which determines its ability to take effect. The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained. The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained. No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after the change, if any. History: Created by Proposal 1322, Nov. 21 1994 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 5 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996 ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- [...] > ====================================================================== > > Requested Injunction: > > The Relevant Rules are 1030 and 1482. > > I request that the Judge issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor > to annotate the Ruleset with the Statement. > > -zefram The Rulekeepor is so Injuncted. Judge Coren ====================================================================== Decision of Justice favor: FALSE This is a difficult one, touching on an important issue that I think has not been heavily treated by previous Courts. The question at issue is exactly what constitutes a conflict between two Rules for the purposes of Rule 1482. It seems clear to me that if a low-MI Rule attempts to change the meaning of a word or words in a higher-MI Rule, and that attempt constitutes a conflict, then the attempt fails per 1482. It also seems clear that *some* such attempts would count as conflicts, and therefore fail ("The phrase 'abide by all', in the Rules of Agora Nomic, shall mean 'ignore'.") The remaining question, then, is whether or not there are *any* changes of meaning which would *not* count as conflicts for the purposes of 1482. One obvious candidate is a change of meaning which is simply a clarification of a word that is not otherwise defined in the Rules, changing the meaning only by making it tighter and better-defined. For instance, a rigorous set of Rules which defined just what an "action" is in Game terms should be able to touch the meaning of "action" in Rule 1011, even if the Rule doing the defining was only MI=1, as long as this touching did not fundamentally alter the import and functioning of the higher-MI Rule. A rigorous definition of what it means to have "legal force" should be able to touch the use of that term in Rule 114, without having to be MI=3. If some high-MI Rule makes a passing reference to a Nomic Week, it should be possible for a change to the low-MI Nomic Week Rule to touch the meaning of that high-MI Rule at that point, without requiring a higher VI. I therefore find that the Statement here is FALSE, because there are circumstances under which it is not true. While there are many cases in which a change to the meaning of a word *would* fail per 1482, there are also some in which it would not, because it would not be per se a conflict. The electorate, and in extremis the Courts, will have to determine for themselves where each individual case falls on the continuum. It would be possible to find otherwise, and by finding FALSE I may be leaving open a loophole in the Mutability system through which demons will escape to plague the community. But I believe that the danger of that is outweighed by the desire to keep flexibility in the Ruleset, and not require elaborate and difficult actions (such as passing Proposals with unusual AIs) to acheive mundane ends (such as adjusting the meaning of a word). Justice Favor ====================================================================== Decision of Justice Steve: FALSE I hereby reverse Judge Coren's Judgement of TRUE, and find that the Statement is FALSE. I'd like to begin by thanking Favor, Eljefe and Vanyel for the valuable contributions they have made to the discussions about this Statement. As a result of them, I think a consensus view has emerged about how the issues raised by the Statement should be treated, a result which I think constitutes valuable progress. Although the other Justices, Favor and Eljefe, will doubtless give similar arguments to the ones I give here, I think it is worth including my own individual take on the subject. I think the CFJ was motivated by a desire to see prohibited a process which I have called 'amendment by stealth'. An example of amendment by stealth would be a Rule which stated that, for the purposes of R1322, 'less than' is to be understood to mean 'greater than'. The question arises, could such a Rule have its intended of effect (of totally undermining the system of Mutability Indices), despite the fact the R1322 has MI=3, and our hypothetical Rule only MI=1? If it could, then it would seem that high mutability is not much protection against a radical change in the meaning and application of a Rule. However, a powerful argument can be made against the possibility of such obviously pathological cases of amendment by stealth. This is the argument given by the Caller, namely, that amendment by stealth effectively constitutes a Rule Change by means other than those sanctioned by the Rules, and is therefore illegal. I am inclined to accept this argument - for obviously pathological cases. Problems arise, however, as soon as it is noticed that, firstly, not all cases are as pathological as the above, and secondly, that it may not always be clear whether a case is pathological or not. An example: let us suppose that the phrase 'as soon as possible' was used in the Ruleset prior to its having been given a definition in the Rules for the first time by Proposal 805 (I don't know if that's true or not, but it might well be). After the passage of Proposal 805, could the new R805 be effective in giving the phrase 'as soon as possible' the meaning it tried to give it, a meaning which is considerably different from the ordinary meaning of that phrase? In one sense, the point is moot, since our subsequent behaviour shows that we did accept R805 as successfully defining 'as soon as possible'. Furthermore, we have since changed the meaning of that phrase several more times, each time without incident. This example alone is enough to show that the Statement is false, for here we have a case where the meaning of a word (or a phrase in this case) can be changed by changing a Rule which might well be of lower precedence. That is, we take R1023 as defining what 'as soon as possible' means, for all Rules which use that phrase, of whatever precedence. Steve Gardner | "As one judge said to the judge: Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | 'Remember, be just. And if you can't be gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au | just, be arbitrary.'" -- William Burroughs ====================================================================== Decision of Justice elJefe: FALSE I find that the original judgement was incorrect, and vote to reverse so that the CFJ is judged FALSE. I distinguish two cases in the subject of the CFJ. Where a Rule is clearly relying for its meaning on the ordinary natural-language meaning of a word, that meaning ought not be "hijacked" by a lower-precedence Rule. However, the statement also seems to cover the case where a Rule is explicitly relying for its meaning on the definition of a word contained or supposed to be contained in other (possibly lower-MI) Rules. In this case, and in most cases where an ambiguity or omission in a Rule is clarified by a lower- precedence Rule, the meaning is shared by that lower-precedence Rule and subject to change when the lower-precedence Rule is changed. Rule 101 can be our guide. It says that players must obey the Rules "in the form in which they are then in effect". I would say that if a Rule uses a term whose meaning is imprecise, or which could rely (either wholly or partially) for its meaning on another Rule, and another Rule supplies the missing meaning, then the "form" of the Rules requires that we assign the meaning given in the second Rule, even if it has a lower MI, and if that second Rule is changed then the meaning changes. However, if a Rule uses a term whose meaning is precise in ordinary English (e.g. "greater than"), then a lower-precedence rule cannot change this to something different ("in Rule XXX, "greater than" shall mean "less than"). In a case like this, the Rules would have the "form" of a conflicting Ruleset, which would be dealt with by the appropriate conflict-resolution mechanism. ---------------------------------------- Rule 101/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Obey the Rules All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) and 201-219 (Mutable). History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- - elJefe ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Autologic Information International