CFJ 917

"For the purposes of Rule 114, if it is not legally possible for any
 Proposals to be distributed and voted on, then it is not possible to
 make arbitrary modifications to the Ruleset."


Judge:        elJefe

Judgement:    FALSE

Eligible:     +Andre, Antimatter, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, favor,
              General Chaos, (Harlequin), KoJen, Michael, Morendil,
              Murphy, +Oerjan, Swann, (Vanyel), Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:       Steve
Barred:       -
Disqualified: Vanyel
On hold:      Harlequin


  Called by Steve, Wed, 2 Apr 1997 16:49:46 +1000 (EST)
  Assigned to Vanyel, Thu, 3 Apr 1997 09:12:47 +0100
  Vanyel defaults
  Assigned to elJefe, Mon, 14 Apr 1997 11:56:29 +0100
  Judged FALSE, Fri, 18 Apr 1997 16:45:43 +0000
  Published, Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:13:53 +0100


Judgement: FALSE

Reasons and arguments:

Let us consider the statement as meaning something like "given the
current Ruleset but without Proposals, it would not then be possible
to make arbitrary modifications in the sense of Rule 114".  I choose
this because it is a possible interpretation of the Statement (as a
counterfactual), it is one apparently intended by the Caller, and the
alternative (interpreting it as a statement of a general principle) is
trivially false.

Good counterfactual construction requires the "current ruleset but
without Proposals" to be a ruleset as close as possible to the current
one (as of 2 April 1997, date of the CFJ), but with something
preventing Proposals from being distributed and voted upon.

    [[ E.g. perhaps the EV stipend is not operating for some reason,
       and all EV's are in the Bank.   :-)

       Or "possibly" some *scam* could bind all players, present and
       future, to an SLC that stops them from submitting Proposals.
       This would require no change at all to the Ruleset itself.  I
       will give no further details yet.  }:-D

In keeping with this principle, we will regard the Proposal Rules as
inoperative for some reason, but still present in the Ruleset and so
with their text available, e.g. to the Frankenstein Monster.

In that case, it would be possible (after some time) for the Mad
Scientist to insert the following text into the Frankenstein Rule:

      A Frankenstein Monster is created whenever a Proposing Entity
      delivers some collection of text to the Promotor with the clear
      indication that that text is intended to become a Frankenstein

      A Referendum shall then be conducted in usual manner, with the
      following exceptions :

      * Frankenstein Monster Collector: The Frankenstein Monster
        Collector is the Liaison.

      A Frankenstein Monster shall be adopted if and only if it
      receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved.

      When a Frankenstein Monster is adopted, its Power becomes equal
      to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text
      of the Frankenstein Monster are implemented to the maximal
      extent permitted by the Rules.

      The Adoption Index of a Frankenstein Monster is the maximum of
      1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value
      required for that Frankenstein Monster by the Rules (if any).

This is a little loose, but certainly something close to this will

And even in this form I believe that there is only one way to make
sense of it: that properly identified text delivered to the Promotor
is then voted on in a Referendum, which if successful gives effect to
the provisions contained therein.

This would essentially put Proposals back in business (with a new
name).  Thus I judge the statement FALSE.

NOTE 1: This would not be a quick remedy.  The expected time for the
Frankenstein Mutator to select Rules 1483, 1632, 106, 594, and 594
would be about 12 years.  But we are familiar with the argument that
extending the Voting Period to 104 years would not violate the old
form of Rule 114.

NOTE 2: I reject the idea that this does not count as a "combination
of player actions" because its termination time is indefinite.  The
point is that it is certain to terminate eventually.  The whole field
of probabilistic number theory relies on such procedures, and they are
implemented in various cryptographic protocols.

NOTE 3: In the above, the adoption index of a FM can even be 1
initially and the scheme could still be made to work, a la the clever
scam discovered by Morendil.



Rule 114/1 (Power=3)
Rules Can Always Be Changed

      It must always be possible to make arbitrary modifications to
      the ruleset by some combination of player actions.  Any change
      to the gamestate that would cause this condition to become false
      does not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding.


(Caller's) Arguments:

At present, most discussion of the effect of Rule 114 needs to be
prefaced with clarificatory remarks concerning precisely what it means
to be able to make 'arbitrary modifications to the Ruleset by some
combination of Player actions'. There seems to me to have developed a
consensus around the notion that at the very least, if it is not
legally possible to have Proposals distributed and voted on, then we
should regard the Ruleset as not arbitrarily modifiable.  I seek to
have this clarification incorporated into Rule 114 by Annotation.

Relevant Rules: 114

Requested Injunction: I request that the Judge issue an Injunction to
the Rulekeepor to Annotate Rule 114 with the Statement, as e is
permitted to do by Rule 789.