============================  Appeal 2277a  ============================


Panelist:                               Elysion
Decision:                               AFFIRM


Panelist:                               root
Decision:                               AFFIRM


Panelist:                               ais523
Decision:                               AFFIRM

========================================================================

History:

Appeal initiated:                       20 Nov 2008 16:46:59 GMT
Assigned to Elysion (panelist):         25 Nov 2008 20:35:05 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist):            25 Nov 2008 20:35:05 GMT
Assigned to ais523 (panelist):          25 Nov 2008 20:35:05 GMT
ais523 moves to AFFIRM:                 30 Nov 2008 17:50:00 GMT
Elysion moves to AFFIRM:                04 Dec 2008 22:23:19 GMT
root moves to AFFIRM:                   12 Dec 2008 06:46:30 GMT
Final decision (AFFIRM):                12 Dec 2008 10:35:48 GMT

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

I don't agree with either line of argument, actually. In my
interpretation of what happens, "is" specifies a value for the voting
limit; the Notes rule specifies a way to increase it, which takes
precedence, and therefore sets its own value, which is 1 more than it
would have been otherwise. Caste says the voting limit is 1: Notes says
the voting limit is 1+50, and Notes wins. For something which is
platonically set with an "is", an increase clearly also platonically
sets it to a higher value than its previous platonic value; as the value
isn't a floating property like a switch, there's no other interpretation
of "increase" that makes sense.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

I recommend REMAND with instructions to explicitly evaluate the two
competing interpretations:

  +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
      limit and 2126's increases stick.

  -S) Even though 2126 takes precedence, 2126 only attempts to operate
      once and 2156 attempts to operate conditionally, so 2126's
      increases happen but 2156 comes along afterward and resets things.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

An increase that remains in effect for an infinitesimal amount of time
is no increase at all.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

R2156, in defining that a voting limit *is* a caste level (as opposed
to saying "is set to" a caste level) constitutes a whole and complete
definition of a particular voting limit.  As a definition, R2156 governs
the properties of the voting limit that are possible to exist (R1586)--
it is no more possible to set a voting level to deviate from a player's
caste than it would be possible to set a voting limit to be a chunk of
green cheese.  Such a definition constitutes an implicit claim of
precedence for the purposes of R1030.  Since R2156 and R2126 are of the
same power, and R2126 does not itself claim to have greater precedence,
this claim should be sufficient to establish R2156's authority in the
matter.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

This actually argues in comex's favour. It is indeed possible to set a
voting limit to a different value. This does not create an implicit
claim of precedence for R2156 though; far from it! It means that R2126
has the claim of precedence, as it's claiming to do something R2156
claims is impossible. Imagine R1 saying "Goethe CAN deregister by paying
1 Stem" and R2 saying "Goethe CANNOT deregister"; R1 clearly takes
precedence here, due to the direct conflict. If it had been R1 saying
"Goethe CAN deregister by paying 1 Stem" and R2 saying "Every second,
Goethe becomes unable to deregister", then it's no longer so clear;
there might not be a conflict due to deregistration-ability becoming
some sort of flip-state there. When there's an obvious direct conflict
between two rules, as there is here, there isn't an implicit claim of
precedence on either; there's an explicit clash, and the more powerful
rule, or the rule with the lower number, takes precedence.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

On Thu, 2008-11-20 at 13:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> An important missing piece in your argument is that I used R1586 to
> argue for definitional preference. R2 is actually in conflict with R1586
> as well as R1.  In particular from R1586:
>                                                          "then that
>       entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent
>       is possible under the new definitions."
>          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It is not possible for the Voting Index to be Green Cheese under its
> definition as a number.  As R2 would allow me to set it against the R1
> "new definitions", R2 is in conflict with R1586 (and in the current case,
> by numerical precedence, R1586 wins).
This argument fails utterly: quote the first half of that sentence
{{{
      If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
      still define that entity but with different properties,
}}}
and the then clause fails to apply. No way is spending a Note to
increase voting limit /amending/ the rules that define voting limit.

Also, you seem to have numerical precedence backwards, although I don't
think it affects your argument.

> Finally, we're *both* making implicit claims.  You're claiming the fact
> that someone CAN set a numerical index to Green Cheese is an implicit
> definition that the numerical index has a defined green cheese state.
> I'm saying that the definition implicitly claims precedence (which only
> works at the same Power to override numerical precedence) and forbids
> a green cheese state under R1586 as it is not possible under the new
> definitions.  I still find my implicit claim far less of a stretch than
> yours.
R1030:
{{{
      If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one
      another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes
      precedence.

      If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
      itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or
      takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
      provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining
      precedence.

      If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
      precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
      determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
      the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical
      method for determining precedence.

      If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another
      or defer to one another, then the numerical method again
      governs.
}}}

Implicit claims don't affect precedence; R1030 explicitly requires
precedence claims to be explicit. There is definitely no comparison of
strength of implicit claims! If there is a claim on both sides, or a
claim on neither side, go numerical; and R2126 beats R2156, with R1586
being irrelevant.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

Several interpretations have been thrown out, including (extended from
Murphy's post):

 +S) 2126 takes precedence, so 2156 implicitly defines the initial
     limit and 2126's increases stick.

 -S) Even though 2126 takes precedence, 2126 only attempts to
     operate once and 2156 attempts to operate conditionally, so
     2126's increases happen but 2156 comes along afterward and
     resets things.

 +G) Even though 2126 takes precedence, it defers to Rule 2156
     because the latter is defining a term used by the former (and
     Rule 754 takes precedence over both).

 -G) Rule 2156 defines voting limit as caste, so an attempt to
     increase voting limit is in fact a failed attempt to increase
     caste.

 +A) Rule 2126's "increase" should be interpreted such that upon an
     increase, Rule 2126 defines the voting limit as one higher than
     it would otherwise be, in the fashion of an RPG.

Wooble's judgement agreed with -S, but e gave the issue only a
perfunctory treatment.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

-G') Rule 2156 defines voting limit as caste, so an attempt to increase
     voting limit on one proposal alone is an attempt to simultaneously
     change and not-change caste, thus ineffective.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

A very quick summary of the arguments (I'll flesh them out
later):

+G No rule 754 doesn't say that, and anyway you didn't
consider the effect of rule 683 in this; rule 754 merely
says everything's talking about the same thing.

-G/-G': Voting limit isn't caste now, but caste at the
start of the voting period. Trying to change that
retroactively isn't something that can sanely be implied
into a rule, especially given the "by default" in rule
754.

+S/-S: The rules don't try to define a switch here, we
shouldn't imply one into them unless absolutely necessary.
(Actually, rule 2156 is ambiguous, and the alternative
interpretation makes it clear that +S is correct, but
nobody's suggested that interpretation before and it would
be against game custom.)

+A: The only correct one, see my earlier arguments for now,
I'll explain in more detail later.

========================================================================

Panelist ais523's Arguments:

Regardless of the prior judge's arguments, there is
another reason why this CFJ is clearly TRUE; even without
a failure of the scam in question, proposal 5962 would
still fail, and thus proposal 5961 could never have been
forced through as a result. This panel judges CFJ 2277a
AFFIRM, but with an error rating of 90, as the judge's
result was correct for the wrong reasons.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

First, CFJs 2277a and 2278a. comex attempted to buy Murphy's vote on
"proposal 5952", meaning 5962. Although this is a simple typo, it causes
enough ambiguity that comex's attempt to buy Murphy's vote on proposal
5962 clearly fails. (Whether comex succeeded in buying Murphy's vote on
proposal 5952 is another matter, but ultimately irrelevant to both that
proposal and to the CFJs at hand.) As Murphy's vote was reported
incorrectly, the initial attempt to resolve proposal 5962 failed; and
even if ehird had a boosting voting power, the proposal would still
apparently have failed. So uncontroversially, CFJs 2277 and 2278 are
indeed both TRUE, although judge Wooble's reasoning was highly incorrect
(as will be shown later). As a result, I intended the above verdict, to
AFFIRM Wooble's result with a high error rating (for the correct verdict
but the wrong reasoning).

========================================================================

Panelist root's Arguments:

[support actually given by CotC Murphy]

========================================================================