==============================  CFJ 3008  ==============================

    The FLR published on 12 April 2011 is incomplete.

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

Caller:                                 Turiski

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE


Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              IRRELEVANT

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

History:

Called by Turiski:                      23 Apr 2011 05:50:44 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         24 Apr 2011 03:45:44 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     26 Apr 2011 01:00:40 GMT
Reconsideration requested by Yally:     26 Apr 2011 01:05:38 GMT
Reconsideration requested by scshunt:   26 Apr 2011 03:11:59 GMT
Reconsideration requested by G.:        26 Apr 2011 03:18:05 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         26 Apr 2011 03:18:05 GMT
Judged IRRELEVANT by G.:                26 Apr 2011 03:18:05 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The rulekeepor’s responsibilities include placing all rules in the FLR.

The wording of 2141, and the annotation of 1051, suggests that giving rules ID
numbers is less of a requirement than a duty of the rulekeepor.

ehird is therefore a rule (see below).

Therefore, ehird’s exclusion constitutes an incompleteness in the FLR.




First, a comment.

The wording in 2141 is very broad; and one could argue that, for instance,
ehird is not a rule since eir content is not infinite in scope. However, most
rules that exist currently in the FLR, which are generally agreed to be rules,
are not infinite in scope either. It is merely their capacity to be so that
allows them to satisfy that condition. In that vein, I will use ALTASEAOR to
mean "at least to a similar extent as other rules" when I feel this concept
should be emphasized.

With that in mind,

Eir power is two; a rational between between one and four,
E is an instrument, as e is an entity with non-zero power,
E has the capacity to govern the game generally ALTASEAOR,
E is always taking effect (or equivilently "producing the effects that eir
text describes"), assuming he is active (current-FLR-style rules have a
similar assumption);

Eir content takes the form of a text
(It need not actually be a text according to R2141; merely take the form of
one. This is clearly the case for ehird, and persons generally, as all Agoran
interactions are through a text-based medium. It may be argued that ehird then
takes the form of multiple texts. As a counter-argument, I claim that “all” of
those texts are actually a single text which he changes; most of these changes
happen to be additions),
Eir content is unlimited in scope ALTASEAOR;

E may define in-game entities; in particular, proposals serve as the most
significant example of this, but by no means the only one,
E may regulate the behavior of those entities ALTASEAOR,
E may make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities ALTASEAOR;

E may prescribe player behavior (def: "to lay down as guide, direction, or
rule of action"),
E may proscribe player behavior (def: “to denounce or condemn”),
E may modify the rules or the application thereof (through proposals); and

E may do any of the above things in a conditional manner.

E may not have a title, but "If a rule ever does not have a title" is very
strong evidence that this is not a requirement for rule-ness. Alternatively, e
may have the title "ehird" or "Elliot Herd"

Thus, e satisfies all the R2141 conditions for being a rule except for having
an ID number. As stated above, context implies this is not a requirement on
the entity, but on the Rulekeepor.


Further notes:
This does not conflict with 105. Persons, not merely players, have power 2,
and are therefore Instruments (however, they are not rules for many reasons -
one being that they may not make instantaneous changes to in-game entities).
But, by 105(a), Instruments generally can enact rules; specifically, a person
might enact a rule (create a player) by registering. Thus, creating
player-rules can be entirely defined under the mechanism in 105, and therefore
satisfies the restrictive clause of 105.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2141: (in full)
      A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
      game generally, and is always taking effect.  A rule's content
      takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.  In
      particular, a rule may define in-game entities and regulate
      their behaviour, make instantaneous changes to the state of
      in-game entities, prescribe or proscribe certain player
      behaviour, modify the rules or the application thereof, or do
      any of these things in a conditional manner.

      Every rule has power between one and four inclusive.  It is
      not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.

      Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the rulekeepor.

      Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
      rule ever does not have a title, the rulekeepor SHALL assign a
      title to it by announcement as soon as possible.

      For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
      the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
      substantive aspects of the rule.  However, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, the rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as
      described elsewhere in this rule.


Annotation for rule 1051: (in part)
  [The] rulekeepor's duties are:
  * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141) [...]
  * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051)


Rule 2150: (in part)
      A person is an entity defined as such by rules with power of at
      least 2.  A person CAN generally be the subject of rights and
      obligations under the rules.


Definition of an Instrument (Rule 1688)
      An Instrument is an entity with positive Power.


Rule 105: (in part)
      Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
      as part of its effect,

      (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum
          of the power specified by the enacting instrument,
          defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not
          specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules.
          The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new
          rule, which if present shall prevail.  The ID number of the
          new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any
          attempt to so specify is null and void. [...]

      This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
      created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
      become a rule or cease to be a rule.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Turiski:

EDIT: Please change

> The wording of 2141, and the annotation of 1051, suggests that giving rules
ID numbers is less of a requirement than a duty of the rulekeepor.

to

The wording of 2141, and the annotation of 1051, suggests that entities
purporting to be rules are not barred from being rules simply for lack of an
ID number, since it is the task of the Rulekeepor to give one to them.

Please also change the two uses of the word "infinite" to "unlimited" in the
paragraph after "First, a comment."

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

This hinges on interpreting Rule 2150 as

  "A person is an entity (defined as such by rules) with power of at
   least 2."

rather than the intended

  "A person is an entity defined as such by (rules with power of at
   least 2)."

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Even if ehird were once a rule, e was ratified out of
ruleness last time the SLR was ratified, and none of the mechanisms for
rule changes in the rules could possibly have made em a rule again.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Turiski:

Ratifications, by definition in 1551, make minimal possible changes to the
game state. In particular it "cannot include a rule change unless the ratified
document purports to include the text, title, and/or power of the rule being
changed." Repealing a rule is a rule change, by definition. No SLR or FLR
published (to my knowledge) has done this. So if ehird was a rule before, e is
still a rule.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

If ehird is a rule, then thanks to Rule 105, e
has not changed since 2007 in any way that affects eir operation.
Luckily, eir mother narrowly escaped violating the rules by creating
em, because rules were not explicitly defined at the time.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

Agora is actually older than ehird is. However, I don't
think anything in the ruleset at the moment ehird was born would be
likely to imply e was a rule. (I don't think anything in the current
ruleset does either.)

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

Firstly, I am very confused; unless my email is missing something and
I am poor at searching archives, I don't think there was an FLR
published in April.  But assuming that there was and I missed it...

This is fundamentally against the R101 recognition of rights to persons
which are considered entities independent of Agora.  The error in the
persons-have-power argument has been pointed out already, so I'll just
add that Persons are considered non-copyable entities independent of
text; they create text but they are not text.

FALSE.

If the FLR wasn't in fact published, I'd say that "the FLR published"
was null/nonexistent, which is different than "incomplete" and thus
still deserves a false.

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

Request for reconsideration by <function player at 0xb6d4d56c>:

I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to Reconsider this because the
lack of an FLR published on that date makes the claim vacuously true, not
false.

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

Request for reconsideration by <function player at 0xb6d4d56c>:

On 11-04-25 10:58 PM, Elliott Hird wrote:
> Fair enough. But since we don't have an EXCEPTION judgement, it's
> easier to argue that "The FLR published in April was incomplete" means
> "forall x, is-an-FLR-published-in-April-plus-other-conditions-to-unambiguous
ly-specify-zero-or-one-objects(x)
> =>  incomplete(x)" as opposed to "exists x,
> is-an-FLR-published-in-April-plus-other-conditions-to-unambiguously-specify-
zero-or-one-objects(x)
> /\ incomplete(x)". But that's just my opinion, one laden with
> pseudo-formal-logic and ridiculously long predicate identifiers.
I think that the actually correct answer is UNDECIDEABLE. The statement
accepts as a premise that there was such an FLR. It is equivalent to
asking "<UNDEFINED> has four members." Thus "otherwise not capable of
being accurately described as true or false" is correct, I think.

Given the controversy, I support the motion to reconsider.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

Having confirmed that the FLR in question doesn't exist, I judge IRRELEVANT:
"extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that don't actually
exist."

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