==============================  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:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              TRUE


Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

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 FKA441344:
                                        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
Judged TRUE by omd:                     08 Feb 2012 02:12:21 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 <function player at 0xb6d4d844>:

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 8:29 PM, ais523 <callforjudgement@yahoo.co.uk> 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 <function player at 0xb6d4d844>:

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 <function player at 0xb6d4d844>:

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 <function player at 0xb6d4d844>:

I support this intent, which I hereby dub "Rule 1023/28".

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

Request for reconsideration by <function player at 0xb6d4d844>:

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".

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

Judge omd's Arguments:

Well, there are several differences here:

- Referring to a revision number is always ill-defined, but "Rule
xxxx/yy" would normally be unambiguous notation for "revision yy of
Rule xxxx" (even if the meaning of "revision yy" is ambiguous).
Almost any notation could hypothetically collide with a name that
something might come to be known by-- "Amend 'Role and Attributes of
Rules'" would normally be totally unambiguous if unusual, but if a
contract with that title were created and commonly referred to as
such, it would probably be ambiguous enough to fail.  Even, say, "Rule
2141" might be the title of another object, and although having
canonical names for things is strongly in the interest of the game, if
the name somehow became deeply enmeshed in game custom, "Amend Rule
2141" could become ambiguous.  So it doesn't make sense to predicate
every CFJ on the possibility.  (Note that attempts to dub things "Rule
xxxx/yy" with reference to ais523's judgement are much less
hypothetical but don't count, since inquiry cases are on the truth of
the statement at the time the case was initiated.)

- As I mentioned, this CFJ statement is inherently hypothetical, while
the specification of a rule change refers to actual circumstances.  It
is reasonable to apply a stronger standard of unambiguity to reality,
because doing so can usefully restrict input knowledge to the truly
knowable, while hypotheticals are inherently unknowable.

- Rule 105's "Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change
causes that change to be void and without effect" is way stronger than
the traditional requirements for judgements.

- Whether or not something has become commonly referred to as "Rule
xxxx/yy" is at least knowable at any given time, but it's undefined
where along the process of 'decision to make change -> local commit ->
uploaded to web -> published' the game should consider a revision
number to have been actually changed.  As ais523 noted, there is the
distinct possibility of "already have arbitrarily changed", which is
certainly the type of thing the ambiguity clause was intended to
prevent.

Furthermore, even if "Rule xxxx/yy" became ambiguous because it could
refer to either a revision number or another object with that name (as
part of reasonable context, I assume that xxxx/yy is  something
generally considered an actual ID number and an actual revision
number; if not, obviously there is no ambiguity), the outcome wouldn't
be affected, because something that's ambiguous about whether or not
it refers to something ambiguous is still ambiguous!  The rule change
would still fail.

Sidenote: ID numbers are not strictly regulated either; Rule 2141 says
that "rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor", but
does not explicitly prevent me from reassigning them.  However, ID
numbers are so strongly enmeshed in rule and game custom as
unambiguous identifiers that I'm not sure if an attempt to reassign
them would be successful; meanwhile, revision numbers have not been
regulated for seven years, and have often been inconsistent, such as
in

Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000

or

Created by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994

or

Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
(Today I would not record this in history, because it is not a change.)

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