Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3145 ============================== CFJ 3145 ============================== The statement "Amend Rule xxxx/yy" is equivalent to "Amend Rule xxxx IFF its revision number is yy." ======================================================================== Caller: Arkady Judge: ais523 Judgement: FALSE Judge: omd Judgement: TRUE Judge: omd Judgement: ======================================================================== History: Called by Arkady: 13 Jan 2012 22:50:28 GMT Assigned to ais523: 14 Jan 2012 20:22:30 GMT Judged FALSE by ais523: 15 Jan 2012 01:29:14 GMT Reconsideration requested by omd: 15 Jan 2012 02:31:46 GMT Reconsideration requested by Pavitra: 15 Jan 2012 02:37:59 GMT Reconsideration requested by Murphy: 15 Jan 2012 05:18:08 GMT Assigned to ais523: 15 Jan 2012 05:18:08 GMT ais523 recused: 26 Jan 2012 18:08:22 GMT Assigned to omd: 28 Jan 2012 19:33:35 GMT Judged TRUE by omd: 05 Feb 2012 23:42:40 GMT Reconsideration requested by ais523: 06 Feb 2012 10:12:22 GMT Reconsideration requested by omd: 06 Feb 2012 18:17:47 GMT Reconsideration requested by The Person Formerly Known As 441344: 06 Feb 2012 21:26:45 GMT Reconsideration requested by Murphy: 07 Feb 2012 05:42:02 GMT Assigned to omd: 07 Feb 2012 05:42:02 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: This seems to be the most obvious interpretation. ======================================================================== Judge ais523's Arguments: The noun "Rule xxxx/yy" can only reasonably be parsed as "a rule named 'xxxx/yy'". So I judge this FALSE, but only just; under the current ruleset, it could refer to a rule: * with ID number xxxx and revision number yy * with title xxxx/yy * or commonly referred to as xxxx/yy The second is impossible in the current ruleset; the third isn't, as although no rule is currently commonly referred to with a name of that form, that could change without any ruleset amendments. ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by omd: On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:29 PM, ais523 wrote: > * or commonly referred to as xxxx/yy > The second is impossible in the current ruleset; the third isn't, as > although no rule is currently commonly referred to with a name of that > form, that could change without any ruleset amendments. I intend to call for reconsideration with two support, as this is highly unlikely. ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by Pavitra: I support. Common usage is that the first sense is meant. ======================================================================== Judge omd's Arguments: To address ais523's judgement-- like any CFJ statement, this one is impossible to evaluate without context about what definitions these terms have (or even what language they're written in), and since the CFJ statement suggests a hypothetical (the statements are not equivalent in all cases-- if you submitted a proposal containing one of the statements, its effect on the ruleset and subsequent publication requirements would depend on which one-- but "equivalent" here clearly implies "in effect, if they were hypothetically required to be applied to the ruleset"), it is valid and necessary for the context to back up from the precise gamestate at the time the CFJ was submitted and apply a cloud of generality, stating that the gamestate is merely within reasonable bounds of that one. Since rule changes are less expected than other changes and harder to predict the effects of, it is customary to assume that the relevant rules remain substantially the same; but there is neither rule nor custom that those bounds extend to no rule changes and all possible other changes. That a rule will come to be commonly referred to as "xxxx/yy" in the near future is extremely unlikely, so it is no more reasonable to judge FALSE on the chance it might than on the chance a rule with that title will be created. As for the proposal, Rule 105 requires the specification of rule changes to be unambiguous. Although Rule 1681 requires the SLR to include each rule's revision number, revision numbers are not otherwise defined, and although the ruleset has maintained a consistent revision number system for a long time, I'm presumably allowed to adjust the numbering as I see fit. This is not good enough. So the statements (in the context of a proposal) both do nothing, and are thus equivalent. TRUE. ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by ais523: I intend, with 2 support, to reconsider this judgement, as it contradicts itself. The judgement considers the possibility that the Rulekeepor might arbitrarily change (or already have arbitrarily changed) revision numbers, and yet excludes the possibility that a rule might come to be known by a name that looks similar to the standard notation for revision numbers. Both circumstances seem equally hypothetical (unless the Rulekeepor reacts by changing the revision numbers in the ruleset out of spite); indeed, it's more common in Agora to give things weird names in an attempt to exploit loopholes, than it is to change traditions such as the Ruleset format. ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by omd: I support this intent, which I hereby dub "Rule 1023/28". ======================================================================== Request for reconsideration by The Person Formerly Known As 441344: I support because, in addition to ais523's arguments, the fact that the Rulekeepor could arbitrarily change revision numbers does not make the rule change any more ambiguous than, for instance, a vote of "ENDORSE Rulekeepor". ========================================================================