>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Fri Oct 27 08:18:53 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id IAA14967 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 08:18:46 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id GAB02736 for nomic-official-outgoing; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:12:30 -0700
Received: from wing4.wing.rug.nl (wing4.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.4]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA02694 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 06:12:20 -0700
Message-Id: <199510271312.GAA02694@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing4.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA11818; Fri, 27 Oct 1995 14:11:51 +0100
>From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 815: Judgement
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 14:11:51 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

#######################################################################

			Assignment CFJ 815

"Rule 1011 should be interpreted such that, if an amendment is made to the 
Rules governing the properties of any Game Entity, that all such Game Entities 
have their properties changed to conform to the amendment."

======================================================================
Judge:		favor
Judgement:	TRUE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, favor, KoJen, Michael, 
		Morendil, Oerjan, SugarWater, Vanyel, Vlad, wutold, 
		Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Swann
Barred:		elJefe, Kelly, Steve
On Hold:	Garth, JonRock

Effects:	favor gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement

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

History:
  Called by Swann, 26 Oct 1995, 02:04 -0400
  Asssigned to favor, 26 Oct 1995, timestamp lost
  Judged TRUE by favor, 27 Oct 1995, 08:47 EDT

#######################################################################

Argument:

There has been made an argument that since the Rules Governing Groups
have been amended substantially, that any Groups formed under the old
Rules cease to exist-- or at least cease to have any effect vis-a-vis
the Game of Agora.  It is my contention that there is nothing to support
this view, and in fact, the oft-referenced 1011 actually forbids such an
interpretation.

Before the adoption of 1760, there was a class of Entities known as Groups
the contention is that, since 1760 made wholesale changes to the Entitie
known as Groups, that the incompatibly-formed prior Groups ceased to exist.

This is in direct contradiction with 1011!

>From 1011:

     Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists
      only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes,
      Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any
      action other than those specified by the Rules.

What Rule specifies the destruction of the old Groups?  None.  Certainly
the amendments in 1760 say nothing about repealing the legal authority of
prior Groups.  Any such diminishment of prior Groups is an arbitrary change,
wholly outside the authority of the Ruleset, and therefore void.

And, since Groups themselves are still a defined Entity in the Ruleset, and
there was no period of time where Groups were not defined, any alleged
discontinuity is addressed by 1011.  The Rules changed the way Groups
were defined, therefore the Entities known as Groups changed their properties,
because that is the only option specified by the Rules.

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

Arguments Judge:

I approach this CFJ with some trepidation, as it touches on
deep and largely unvisited areas of Agora metaphysics and
ontology.  The fact that it is a CFJ on the interpretation
of a specific Rule, though, limits its scope enough that I
have some hope of dealing adequately with the questions raised,
in this limited context.

The issues underlying the truth or falsehood of the Statement
concern the nature of the relationship between the Rules
of Agora and the rest of the Game state; in particular,
between the Rules that define and govern Game Entities and
instances of the Entities themselves, especially as the
Rules change over time.  The fact that the Rules do in
fact change over time complicates the relationship
enormously.

So what does in fact happen to an existing Game Entity when
the Rules that govern its properties (its nature, its
description, its relationship to the rest of the Game)
change?  The Statement requires us, in particular, to
consider whether or not the Entity changes to conform to
the amendment; that is, whether or not the Entity changes
in such a way that the new version of the Rules correctly
describes it.  There seem to be three possiblities here,
for any particular Entity and any particular Rule change:

 a) The Entity might remain unchanged, despite the change
    to the Rules.  This seems unlikely, though, as the
    Entity would then be in violation of the Rules; for
    a Platonist, this is flatly impossible, whereas for
    a Pragmatist it is at least a mistake.  While there is
    no Rule that explictly says that all Entities must
    conform to the Rules, such a Rule seems unnecessary:
    it is essential to the Rules being Rules that the
    Entities they create must at all times conform to them.
    So this possibility is not to be taken seriously.

 b) The Entity might change, so as to be in conformance
    with the new state of the Rules.  This seems relatively
    unproblematic.  For some Entities and some Rule changes,
    of course, the only change to the Entity that would
    bring it (or the Game state as a whole) into conformance
    with the Rules would be for it to cease to exist.  If,
    for instance, the Rules governing a particular Entity
    were to be amended so as to be completely different,
    and describe some other Entities with no properties in
    common with the Entities they previously defined (or
    to define no Entities at all), it would be foolish to
    place great weight on the simple fact of an unchanging
    Rule number.  Similarly, if all the Rules that provide
    for an Entity to exist at all are repealed without
    simultaneous replacement, the only permissible change
    would seem to be destruction. But in general, there will be
    some lesser change to the existing Entities that will bring
    them into conformance with the Rules while still
    allowing them to exist.

    Ideal Rule Changes will of course specify exactly
    what changes should occur to existing Entities to bring
    them into conformance with the new Rules for that
    type of Entity.  But where the Rules are silent on
    the issue, for whatever reason, the issue must be
    settled in some other way; by, for instance, the
    Courts (per Rule 217 and family), or simply the
    rational consensus of the Players.

 c) The Entity might simply cease to exist, or cease to
    be an Entity of the type that it formerly was, by
    virtue of the change to its governing Rules, despite
    the fact that a less-drastic change could have brought
    it into conformance with the new Rules.  There seems
    to be little reason to adopt this strategy, however,
    and a Judge called upon to decide on the fate of some
    pre-existing Entities in a case where the new Rules
    are silent on the issue of conformance-chanes would be
    well-advised to consider it only as a last resort, as
    suggested in the previous paragraph.

What light is thrown on the above musings by Game Custom and previous
Judgements?  Surprisingly little.  The Potato CFJ, for instance,
which at first seems relevant at least to the issue that led to
this CFJ, is in fact not relevant to the present Statement, since
that case did not involve a change to Rules that governed the
properties of a pre-existing Game Entity.  It was, in particular,
the finding of the Judge that there was no pre-existing Game
Entity of the type governed by the new Rule.  That case also
involved a newly-created Rule, not an amendment as the current
Statement specifies.  The Judgement held that a previously-
existing Entity which had been given a particular name by a
Player acting within the Rules did not simply by virtue of
this name take on the properties of a similarly-named Entity
later created by a new Rule; this raises issues in the same
general area as the current question, but not close enough to
shed any light on the current Statement itself.

Game Custom clearly teaches that at least *some* of the properties
of an Entity are implicitly changed when the Rules governing those
properties are changed.  There are countless examples; Rules on
Kudos, Points, Marks, Contests, and so on have all been changed,
without any suggestion that the pre-existing Entities of that
class should therefore cease to exist.  At first glance, this
might seem to give us our answer without further effort, but
while I think it is extremely suggestive and helpful, it is not
entirely final.  I have been unable to find a very strong example
of a deep and fundamental change to the nature of a pre-existing
Entity being caused by a change to the governing Rule in the
absence of a "grandfather" clause.  Such a finding would have
been conclusive that (b) above is the correct consequence of
even such deep changes.  On the other hand, I found no cases
on the other side, either, of Entities ceasing to exist when
they could have been changed instead.  So on balance (b)
still seems the heavy favorite.

Having determined, so far, that (b) seems correct, and that
the Rules and Game Custom (not to speak of common sense)
favor the truth of the dependant clause in the Statement,
what shall we make of the Statement as a whole?  Does the
truth of the dependant clause in fact rest on interpretation
of Rule 1011?

The Argument presented by the Caller deals mainly with the
application of the Statement to a particular issue that
is currently before the Agoran Public.  Since the statement
itself does not mention that issue, however, no Judgement
on the issue itself is required.  The Argument does,
however, illustrate how Rule 1011 comes into consideration.
It would be possible to interpret 1011 so as to prohibit
(b) above (that interpretation would also, as far as I
can tell, prohibit (c), and we'd be in a fine mess).  If
the correct interpretation of 1011 does prohibit (b),
then, the Statement should be judged FALSE.  Otherwise,
it is TRUE.

Under what circumstances would 1011 prohibit the changes
to Game Entities suggested in (b)?  1011 prohibits any
changes to certain types of Entity, if those changes are
caused "by any action other than those specified by the
Rules".  Could the changes suggested in (b) be a change
of the type thus prohibited?  The changes in (b) are
caused by a change to the Rules.  That isn't an action,
though, so since causation is transitive we continue to
follow the chain.  Changes to the Rules are caused by
various actions, and (by Rule 116) the only actions
which can cause changes to the Rules are actions that are
permitted by (which will do as a synonym for "specified
by" in this context) the Rules.  So: the actions which
cause the changes suggested in (b) are actions specified
by the Rules; therefore, Rule 1011 does not prohibit those
changes.  This, along with the considerations of Game
Custom and so on outlined above, lead us to conclude that
the Statement in this CFJ is TRUE.

Respectfully Submitted,

#######################################################################

Evidence:
  Rule 1011/0
  Rule 217/2	(added by Judge)
  Rule 116/0	(added by Judge)


----------------------------------------

Rule 1011/0 (Semimutable, MI=2)
Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed

      Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists
      only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes,
      Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any
      action other than those specified by the Rules.

      No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same
      name or nickname.
      (*Was: 450*)

History:
Created by Proposal 450, Sep. 10 1993
Amended by Proposal 1011, Sep. 5 1994
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1593, Jun. 2 1995

----------------------------------------

Rule 217/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Judgements Must Accord with the Rules

      All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if
      the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement
      to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the
      Spirit of the Game and past Judgements before applying other
      standards.

      This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this
      sentence.

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995
Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995

----------------------------------------

Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Permissibility of the Unprohibited

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,
      which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or
      implicitly permits it.

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 116, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1483, Mar. 15 1995

----------------------------------------