From - Tue Sep 19 12:47:55 2000 Return-Path: Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au ([131.170.42.16]) by walker.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id ssdbr4.f29.37kbi73 for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2000 20:12:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA12196 for agora-discussion-list; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:15:08 GMT Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA12192 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 00:15:04 GMT Received: (from mail@localhost) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.1) id LAA48637 for ; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:13:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au(130.194.1.7) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma048635; Tue, 19 Sep 00 11:13:04 +1100 Received: (from gardner@localhost) by silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA22375 for agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:09:45 +1100 (EST) From: Steve Gardner Message-Id: <200009190009.LAA22375@silas-2.cc.monash.edu.au> Subject: DIS: Repost of CFJ 933 To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (Agora Nomic Discussion List) Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:09:45 +1100 (EST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 X-UIDL: ssdbr4.f29.37kbi73 This was originally posted on Fri, Oct. 11 1997. In my last post I said it was elJefe's Appeal Judgement that was relevant, but actually it's Chuck's. It's the last Judgement, at the bottom. ====================================================================== CFJ 933 "All Voting Tokens were destroyed as a result of the Pragmatic Currencies Proposal taking effect." ====================================================================== Judge: Elde Justices: Chuck (pro-S), Vir (pro-C), elJefe (J) Judgement: TRUE Final Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Blob, ChrisM, Chuck, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad, Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Crito Barred: General Chaos On request: Vanyel On hold: Swann Past Judges: Swann Past Justices:Andre, Calabresi, Elde, elJefe ====================================================================== History: Called by Crito, Mon, 04 Aug 1997 12:13:15 -0400 Assigned to Swann, Tue, 5 Aug 1997 12:14:21 +0100 Swann becomes ineligible, 28 Aug 1997 Assigned to Elde, Tue, 16 Sep 1997 13:01:01 +0200 (MET DST) Judged TRUE by Morendil, acting on behalf of Elde, Fri, 19 Sep 1997 22:47:56 +0200 (MET DST) Appealed by Kolja A., 22 Sep 1997 16:23:39 +0200 Appealed by Chuck, 22 Sep 1997 20:33:54 -0500 (CDT) Appealed by General Chaos, 22 Sep 1997 21:41:25 -0500 Assigned to Andre and elJefe as Justices, and wrongly to General Chaos, 23 Sep 1997 13:38:27 +0200 (MET DST) Wrongly assigned to Calabresi as Justice, 25 Sep 1997 14:15:39 +0200 (MET DST) elJefe SUSTAINs Judgement of TRUE, 29 Sep 1997 10:04:56 +0000 Andre defaults Assigned to Chuck and Vir as Justices, 2 Oct 1997 15:13:01 +0200 (MET DST) Vir SUSTAINs Judgement of TRUE, 05 Oct 1997 19:35:29 -0500 Chuck SUSTAINs Judgement of TRUE, 7 Oct 1997 22:47:03 -0500 (CDT) ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: As Oerjan pointed out, there was an instant of time when Voting Tokens also ceased to have a Mintor. Decision of the Justiciar: TRUE (sustaining the original Judgement) ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: In CFJ 933, Elde Judges the Statement to be TRUE. The reasons for thinking so are briefly outlined as follows : * before 3533 passed, the Mint was a Nomic Entity * the Mint was defined by Rule 1470 * 3533 amended 1470 so that it no longer defined the Mint * by Rule 1586, the Mint ceased to exist * at that time, the Mintor of VTs was still the Mint (1696) * by Rule 1579, all VTs were therefore destroyed at that instant * (thereafter, 1696 was amended to make the Bank the VT Mintor) Rule 1579 stated : If the designated Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist or ceases to possess Mint Authority, all units of that Currency are destroyed and the Currency ceases to exist. It has been suggested that Rule 1579 was at that time in conflict with Rule 1471, which stated The Mintor of a Currency may, at any time, destroy those units of that Currency which it currently possesses in its Treasury, so long as this destruction is permitted by the Rules. Units of Currency may not be otherwise destroyed except as specifically authorized by the Rules. separate support for this position being sought from this provision in Rule 1467 : Neither Currencies nor units of Currency shall be created or destroyed except as specified by the Rules. It must be noted that Rule 1579's provisions both authorize, and specify the manner of, the destruction of units of any Currency falling under its purview; therefore, no conflict exists, precisely because of both 1467's and 1471's conflict-avoiding provisions. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Justiciar: Judge Elde/Morendil argues that during implementation of the Proposal, a rule change caused the Mint to cease being a mintor when it was the mintor of VTs, before another rule change made the Bank the mintor of VTs. There are several different interpretations on how the provisions of a Proposal are implemented, which may affect the argument. (For example, if the provisions are implemented simultaneously, then the Mint did not cease to be a mintor _before_ the Bank was mintor.) But no matter which interpretation is chosen, it remains that the Mint _did_ cease to have Mint Authority. CFJ 828 (Destruction of Group Coins) teaches that this is enough to satisfy the precise wording of Rule 1579, even if it could be shown that VTs had a mintor at every legally significant time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Original Judge's argument Proposal 3533, the Pragmatic Currencies proposal, was implemented under authority of Rule 594. Judge Elde argues that at the time Rule 1470 was amended (depriving the Mint of Mint Authority), Rule 1696 still named the Mint as the Mintor for VTs. The conclusion is that Rule 1579 acted at that moment to destroy all Voting Tokens. 2. How the provisions of a Proposal are implemented There are several interpretations of the Rules on how the provisions of a Proposal are implemented. The Sequential View: Each provision is implemented in order, if allowed by the Rules then in effect, and the Game State is adjusted to include consequent effects of this before turning to the next provision. The Atomic View: Each provision is implemented in order, if allowed by the Rules in effect at the adoption of the Proposal, but no consequent effects cause an adjustment to the Game State until all provisions have been dealt with. The Simultaneous View: All the provisions are considered to be implemented simultaneously, if allowed by the Rules in effect at the adoption of the Proposal, except where dependencies among the provisions require that some are implemented in sequence with other ones. All three of these are consistent with the Rules, and the choice between them must therefore rest on "game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game." The present decision does not require us to choose among these, and thus we refrain from expressing an opinion as to which is preferred. 3. Destruction of Game Coins, CFJ 828 It's fair to compare the present situation to the one arising in CFJ 828. In that case, Proposal 1760 had revamped the Group rules but had forgotten to provide that each Group was the mintor of its own Group Coins, or in fact that Groups were permitted to be the mintors of anything. However, a Rule (1467) provided that "The Mintor of a Currency is the Mint if it is not otherwise defined." But the clear meaning of Rule 1471, worded very much like the two most recent forms of Rule 1579, is that when one entity ceases to have authority to mint a currency and another begins to have that authority in its stead, then that currency is indeed destroyed. The judgement in CFJ 828 states: >Rule 1474/0 clearly said that the Mintor for a Group's Coins was the >Group. That language was amended away by Proposal 1760, and the Group >issuing the Coins then ceased to have authority to be a Mintor, that >authority now going to the Mint. > >Rule 1471/0 states that > > If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > are immediately destroyed, and Currency ceases to exist. > > >Therefore the old Coins ceased to exist upon adoption of Proposal 1760. [...] > >Even though a conclusion is inconvenient, the temptation of avoiding it >by misinterpreting the Rules, or language, must be resisted. The change >of Mintor means that one entity ceased to have the authority and another >one began having it. Rule 1579/1 partly stated: If the designated Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist or ceases to possess Mint Authority, all units of that Currency are destroyed and the Currency ceases to exist. Rule 1579/2 partly stated: If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency are destroyed, and that Currency ceases to exist. The inclusion of "designated" in Rule 1579/1 is not enough to change the result. The meaning of "mintor" and "designated mintor" have at all times been the same, namely the mintor designated by the Rules. Thus I rule that the statement was correctly judged TRUE. Regards, -- elJefe, Justiciar ===================================================================== Decision & Reasoning pro-CotC: To judge this statement, I asked myself a few questions: Q:What was the state of the world before the Pragmatic Currencies Proposal? A:The Mint, as defined by Rule 1470, was the Mintor of VTs. Q: What changes to the game state were made as a result of this Proposal? A:Rule 1470 was amended so it no longer defined the Mint and Rule 1696 was amended to make the Bank the Mintor of VTs. Q:What were the effects of this change? A:Since the Mint was no longer defined, it ceased to exist, by Rule 1586. At the time it ceased to exist, it was the Mintor of VTs. The Bank became the Mintor of VTs. Q:Were the VTs destroyed? Rule 1579 states: If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist, or ceases to have the authority to be a Mintor, then all units of that Currency are destroyed, and that Currency ceases to exist. A:The Mintor of VTs was the Mint. The Bank ceased to exist. Therefore, the Bank, being the Mintor of VTs, ceased to exist, so all VTs were destroyed. In my opinion, there was no instant in time when VTs did not have a Mintor. R1579, however, states that all units of a Currency are destroyed "If the Mintor of a Currency ceases to exist". It does not state that they're destroyed "If a Currency does not have a Mintor". These are two very different phrases. Q:Do the rules have authority to "interfere" in the execution of a proposal? Do the rules have the authority to stop a proposal in mid-execution and change the game state? A:The answer to this question does not alter the judgement of this CFJ. Whether the rules interfered or not, the Mintor of VTs was destroyed. The rules did not make an exception in the case that a new Mintor of VTs was defined. I hereby rule that CFJ 933 was correctly judged TRUE. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning pro-Speaker: My decision on the Appeal of CFJ 933 is to SUSTAIN the original Judgement, TRUE. R&A: First, I agree with Justice Vir that VTs were destroyed even if the "atomic" paradigm (wherein a Proposal represents only a single game state change, although the effects of that change are as if the provisions were applied sequentially) were the correct one; as well as with his basis for that decision. As for the question of whether the "atomic" or "sequential" paradigm is correct, I cannot decide--based on any of the four preferred standards of Rule 217 (Game Custom, common sense, past judgements, the best interests of the Game)--and since I do not need to decide in order to judge this Appeal, I choose not to. However, I will make some lengthy comments on my inability to decide. :) I began writing these R&A with the intent of coming down in favor of the sequential model. Along those lines, I had written: >However, I agree with Steve that the annotations and Amendment >Number of Rule 1551 establish a Game Custom that the "sequential" >paradigm--wherein each provision of a Proposal is applied >individually, and the Rules may act on the intermediate >game states--is the preferred one. (Rule 1551 counts >two "amendments" from a single proposal as two distinct >amendments.) > >First, I note that some have argued that even under the >atomic (or, for that matter, the generally discredited >simutaneous) paradigm, the two alleged amendments would >still be two distinct amendments. With this I disagree. >"Amendment" is nowhere distinctly defined in the Rules, >and thus it must have its normal English usage (possibly >as modified by Game Custom)--which I (intuitively) take >to mean "a change to the text of a Rule." Given this >definition, if the atomic paradigm held, two alleged >amendments by a single proposal would in fact be >only one amendment. However, I realized there is a flaw in this reasoning. I will bring it up below, but there is another issue I wish to address first. >Second, the possibility has been raised that the Rulekeepor >was in error in counting the two "amendments" of Rule >1551 as two actual amendments, and e should have counted >them as a single amendment. I reject this argument on >the grounds that there is no other evidence from the "preferred >standards" of Rule 217 supporting the atomic view. If some >of those preferred standards supported the atomic view, >then the strength of the Game Custom of the annotations >and Amendment Number of 1551 would have to be weighed >against that other evidence. But given the lack of >any other evidence, Rule 1551 must be counted as valid >Game Custom, rather than an error on the Rulekeepor's part. >(This is also supported, I believe, by Rule 1575, "Standards >of Proof".) As I obliquely allude to above, not all Game Customs are of equal strength. Rule 217 provides four preferred standards for judgement but does not (IMO) provide any sort of order in which those standards should be applied--a Judge is free to give precedence to whichever standards e thinks best. However, one thing a conscientious Judge ought to consider, in deciding how to apply the standards, is that some Game Customs are stronger than other Game Customs. A Judge might decide, for example, that a strong Game Custom is to be preferred over common sense, but common sense is to be preferred over a weak Game Custom. (This is a bit of an oversimplification--not all common sense is equally strong, either.) I will not go into a detailed dicussion of what constitutes "strong" versus "weak" Game Custom, but there are two issues which I believe are relevant. First, how many times has the Game Custom been applied? A Game Custom applied dozens of times is stronger than one applied only once or twice. Second, how carefully has the Game Custom been scrutinized in the past? A Game Custom which led to a win, for example, or a player deregistration, is likely to have been very carefully scrutinized, and thus is stronger than a Game Custom with no major effects, which may not have been closely scrutinized. Returning to the issue at hand, we find that we have only a very weak Game Custom supporting the sequential view--there is only one example (Rule 1551), and amendment numbers and Rule annotations are not likely to be closely scrutinized. However, even a weak Game Custom can be decisive, if none of the other standards of Rule 217 apply. There are no (to my knowledge) past judgements on this issue, and common sense does not seem to prefer either view over the other. I personally hold the "best interests of the game" standard in low regard, and choose to place even a weak Game Custom above this standard, but even if I did not, I do not see that either one of TRUE or FALSE would be better for the game than the other. And so I was about to argue that the sequential view was the correct one, as noted in my first quoted argument, until I realized the flaw. (Note that the second argument, concerning the possibility of Rulekeepor error, hinges on the first: if the atomic view can support counting two alleged amendments in a single proposal as two actual amendments, the second argument is irrelevant.) I wrote that since "Amendment" was not clearly defined in the Rules, it had to be given its normal definition of "a change to the text of a Rule." However, this does not fit with another Game Custom--the custom that a Null-Amendment is a valid, legal Amendment. This, IMO, is a moderately strong Game Custom--although it also resides in the poorly-scrutinized area of Amendment Numbers and Rule Annotations, it has been applied many times. Given this, we cannot define "Amendment" simply as "a change to the text of a Rule." A likely definition is "Any alleged amendment to the text of a Rule by a Rule or adopted Proposal, not prohibited by the Rules." Given this definition, two alleged amendments by a single Proposal may be two actual amendments, even under the atomic view. Thus, I find no reason to prefer the sequential model to the atomic, or vice versa, under any of the preferred standards of Rule 217. If this CFJ hinged on that issue, I would have to make a decision based on any other standards I cared to apply, but since it does not (VTs are destroyed in both models), I leave the issue to future CFJs (or, perhaps preferably, legislation). ====================================================================== Evidence (added by pro-Speaker): 1. Rule 217/3 2. Rule 1551/4 3. Rule 1575/0 Rule 217/3 (Power=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, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. [CFJ 684: An Injunction on the interpretation of a Rule is part of Game Custom.] 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 Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996 Originator: Peter Suber Authors: Peter Suber, ... Rule 1551/4 (Power=1) Documents Subject to Ratification The ratification of an Official Document conforms the Game State to what it would be if the valid Official Document thus ratified was completely true and accurate at the time of the Document's publication in the Public Forum. In other words, the State of the Game, upon such ratification, becomes that specified within the Document, plus all subsequent legal changes between the time of its publication and its ratification. All Game State changes due to the ratification of an Official Document occur at the time of such ratification; no retroactive effect is expressed or implied. A Document, once ratified, is for all legal purposes a true and accurate report. The Game State it references may not be retroactively modified prior to the time it was published in the Public Forum, even to reflect a prior mistake, retracted or illegal move, or an Injunction. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would allow such retroactive alterations or corrections to the Game State. In no way does the ratification of a Document invalidate, reverse, alter or cancel any prior moves or transfers, even unrecorded or overlooked ones. Nor does the ratification of a Document change the legality or illegality of any prior move. Ratification only adjusts the actual Game State to conform to that perceived by the Players and Officers in Official Documentation. After a Document has been ratified, the Player in charge of maintaining that Document shall annotate all subsequent publications of that Document with the date of publication of the last such publication that was ratified.. History: Created by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Null-Amended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Authors: ..., General Chaos Rule 1575/0 (Power=1) Standards of Proof A CFJ alleging that a Player has violated a Rule or committed a Crime shall not be judged TRUE unless the evidence is sufficient to be certain of that Judgement beyond reasonable doubt. In all other CFJs, the Judgement shall be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence at hand. History: Created by Proposal 2469, Feb. 16 1996 ====================================================================== -- Steve Gardner | Appearances to the contrary, Dept. of Philosophy, Monash Uni. | things are just what they seem. gardner@silas.cc.monash.edu.au |