==============================  CFJ 2943  ==============================

    The power of Rule 2324 is 2.

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

Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Roujo
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       22 Dec 2010 06:58:31 GMT
Assigned to Roujo:                      10 Jan 2011 01:02:25 GMT
Roujo recused:                          10 Jan 2011 19:27:07 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     16 Jan 2011 22:08:01 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 23 Jan 2011 18:08:21 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

omd wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:45 PM, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Accordingly, I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend Rule
>> 2223 by appending the text: "Also, the power of Rule 2324 is set to
>> 2."
>
> With notice, I do so.
[snip]
> The power of Rule 2324 is now 2, or 3 if the ratification scam already
> set it to 3.  (In that case, the victory rule attempts to set it to 2
> but fails due to power.)

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 00:47 -0500, omd wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 8:44 PM, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:45 PM, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Accordingly, I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend Rule
> >> 2223 by appending the text: "Also, the power of Rule 2324 is set to
> >> 2."
> >
> > With notice, I do so.
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:04 PM, omd <c.ome.xk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause Rule 2324 to amend itself by
> >> appending the following paragraph:
> >>
> >>      coppro CAN cause this rule to make arbitrary rule changes by
> >>      announcement.
> >
> > Despite having not gotten consent, I do so.  (I'm not exactly sure why
> > I made this consent, but since I did, ignoring consent now is fairly
> > bad form.  However, Murphy's comment suggests that his objection was
> > from a counter-scam point of view [rather than not wanting coppro to
> > win], so I may as well treat it from a scam point of view :/)
>
> This is a win announcement.  I am dumb, and a rule states that one or
> more persons CAN cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by
> announcement.
>
> > The power of Rule 2324 is now 2, or 3 if the ratification scam already
> > set it to 3.  (In that case, the victory rule attempts to set it to 2
> > but fails due to power.)
>
> *Now* it is.
>
> > I hereby cause Rule 2324 to remove (unset) the adoption index of the
> > decision to adopt Proposal 6939.
> >
> >> I intend, With Notice, to cause Rule 2324 to amend itself by appending
> >> the following paragraphs:
> >>
> >>      The set of available options on the decision to adopt Proposal
> >>      6939 is { ADOPTED }.
> >>
> >>      The Assessor SHALL resolve that decision before the time this
> >>      text is added to a rule.
> >
> > With notice, I do so.
> >
> > On the decision to adopt Proposal 6939, I vote ADOPTED.
>
> I re-do all of this.

The discussion on whether the escalation to power 2 works has so far
mostly focused on whether it's possible to escalate via win
announcement. (I can think of a plausible reason why it wouldn't - rule
2186 is ambiguous as to which rule actually causes the cleanup condition
to occur - but I think the scam probably works in theory, as it makes no
sense that a cleanup condition in a power 3 rule would have no effect
due to a power 2 rule being unable to cause the power 3 rule to make the
change. The general principle of escalations via rule 2186 and 2223 is,
I think, that they are possible and that bug in the rules should really
be patched at some point.)

However, as the message above shows, there were procedural errors in the
attempted escalation that cause it to definitely have failed. In
particular, rule 2186 requires a win announcement to be factually
correct, to be capable of causing a winning condition to be satisfied,
and to either state that someone wins, or to be explicitly labeled as a
win announcement. Although coppro certainly could have been given a win
via win announcement in that situation, the message above is not it; the
scope of the label "This is a win announcement." is completely
undefined. I can see three possible scopes: the sentence itself; the
entire message; or the paragraph in question.

To start off with, the sentence "This is a win announcement." is clearly
not a win announcement, as it would not trigger anyone to win the game.
Thus, if that's what the win announcement refers to, clearly there is no
win here (and as a bonus, the sentence is factually incorrect).

Referring to the entire paragraph (or possibly to the subsequent
sentence; my win announcements tend to explicitly say "The following
sentence is a win announcement"... in order to make the scope completely
clear) was probably the original intention, but this also fails. I
assume omd is entirely capable of speech, and thus not technically dumb;
and as it's linked with an "and" to the rest of the sentence, the entire
thing thus becomes false.

Referring to the entire message has this problem, and also the problem
of specifying much more than it should, to the point of almost becoming
vague. There are also a lot more potential issues, such as saying an
explicit date/time along with "wrote:" (when of course, the date and
time given are not the time at which the message was /written/, but the
time at which the message was /sent/, likely to be slightly later).
(Perhaps I should try NoVing the Pariah for that sometime...)

Thus, there was no win announcement there, and thus no escalation. (To
be fair to coppro, I suggest H. Dictator G. give coppro the win e
deserves from this, possibly conditional on it not having happened
already.) Nothing else could have set rule 2324's power to 2 either (the
other escalations happening at the time each attempted to set it to 3
instead). So we can definitely state that rule 2324's power did not
become 2.

I therefore judge CFJ 2943 FALSE.

(I note in passing that there's another potential issue why this
particular escalation might fail, unrelated to the concept of rule 2223
escalations in general; the wording of the resulting cleanup procedure
implies (weakly, but IMO more so than the alternative) that the power
change happens only after the dictatorship has been given up ASAP, and
the CFJ was called before that happened. This provides an alternative
argument for FALSE, but a weaker one than the preceding argument.)

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