Monday, August 02, 2010

Call for Judgment: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.

Times out and fails 2-9. - lilomar

Adminned at 06 Aug 2010 10:32:24 UTC

flurie was not given a treason point for the proposal “Chapter and Perverse” by way of the rule “Treason.” His proposal was not treasonous. Change the GNDT to reflect this.

There should be no difference between promoting a rule created within a proposal and promoting a rule already created.

In both cases, the result after the proposal is that a rule of clearance level above the Citizen exists. In both cases, a rule of clearance level at or below the Citizen’s clearance level is created prior to its change in clearance. I’m not sure how one case can be treasonous and the other is not.



08-02-2010 17:19:25 UTC

My argument for calling treason is that adding an INFRARED rule to the ruleset and then changing it to INDIGO is “creating an INDIGO rule”. “Create” is not a keyword, so takes its normal English usage of “bring into existence”, and I don’t see any difference between creating an INDIGO rule in one action, and creating it in two.



08-02-2010 17:36:50 UTC

I would follow that line of thinking if the proposal didn’t explicitly say that it creates a rule prior to the clearance change. It is brought into existence prior to the move, and because proposals are procedural by their nature, we can say that the rule has been in existence prior to its move.


08-02-2010 18:20:47 UTC

against The rule may have been in existence prior to its move, but that doesn’t matter:  it was the move itself that created an INDIGO rule.

The argument that the proposal did not create an INDIGO rule is conflating the two different phrases

1) to create a rule
2) to create an INDIGO rule

In standard English usage, if action X changes a non-[adjective] [noun] into an [adjective] [noun], then it is correct to say that action X “created an [adjective] [noun]”, even though action X did not “create a [noun]”


08-02-2010 18:30:02 UTC



08-02-2010 18:30:46 UTC

Hix, by your argument, ais523’s proposal was also treasonous. Do you agree that that is the case?


08-02-2010 18:38:03 UTC

Oh, yeah.  They’re both treasonous for that reason.  If anyone really wants a workaround, the way to do it is so that it’s something in the ruleset rather than the proposal that creates the high-clearance rule. 

For example, make a proposal that creates an INFRARED rule that waits a few seconds before making a GREEN rule and then self-repealing.  Then you could argue that the proposal did not, when enacted, create a GREEN rule.


08-02-2010 18:43:32 UTC

Hix: that is not standard English usage at all. Modifying something does not create it.

If your clearance was changed to ORANGE, would that create a new Hix? Would that create a new ORANGE Hix? Neither makes sense.

I’m still torn on this CFJ, but your argument makes no sense.


08-02-2010 18:51:36 UTC



08-02-2010 18:52:11 UTC

against per IRC discussion: Hix pointed out that the rule seems to consider the proposal as a whole, not the individual actions within it.

Consider a hypothetical rule “A proposal is treasonous if, if enacted, it would increase a Citizen’s clearance level by two levels”. In this case, two proposals each increasing it by one level would be non-treasonous, but one increasing it by one twice would be. This is a similar case.


08-02-2010 23:35:24 UTC

I have been gone today, so I missed the argument on IRC, but I logged in really quick earlier to check on things. When I saw the last sentence of flurie’s prop, My thought was “Sneaky Bastard! I never thought of that!”

Increasing the clearance of a rule is not covered in the list of treasonous things because I forgot about it, not because I thought it would be covered under something else. Therefore, arrow for the loophole finding, and for the CFJ.


08-03-2010 00:35:19 UTC

[lilomar] The idea of the author of a Rule is less important then the Rule itself. Could I create a Rule “Kevan has achieved Victory” and (in the case this Rule is enacted) create a DoV stating “Oh, well, I meant ‘Keba’, not ‘Kevan’, they sound so similarly”? ;)

against but unfortunately I missed the IRC discussion.


08-03-2010 13:08:32 UTC

I concur with the High Programmer. People should be encouraged to find loopholes like this and exploit them.  arrow  for


08-03-2010 13:45:44 UTC

[PrinceRepulsive] Finding and exploiting loopholes is a fine tradition of Nomic, and I don’t imagine anyone here is voting against the CfJ simply because it’s a loophole. We’re voting against it because we don’t think it exists as a legal loophole, given the current ruleset. We’d politely applaud an undisputed loophole exploit.


08-03-2010 13:49:08 UTC

Yup, the issue with a loophole is whether it’s correct or not. If it’s correct, you let it stand unless it’s really obnoxious or destroys the game.


08-03-2010 13:55:15 UTC

[Keba] My point was that I didn’t think (and still don’t think) that promoting a rule right after creating it is equivalent to creating it at that level. If a proposal said “Create a citizen with INFRARED Clearance, then set their Clearance Level to ORANGE” and there was a rule that “Anytime a citizen has INFRARED Clearance, they gain a PP.”

I don’t think anyone would argue that that citizen should gain a PP. It’s the same here, I consider actions specified in a Proposal to happen individually, in order (especially when the proposal specifically states the order the things are to happen in, eg: “suchnsuch THEN, thisthatntheother”.


08-03-2010 15:14:23 UTC

correction, ais523 was the one who first noticed the loophole. so arrow to him.

But my assessment of flurie’s prop still stands, so my vote on this CfJ remains for


08-04-2010 00:28:02 UTC

[lilomar] But the wording is completely different.

The point is the whole Proposal creates a Rule of a higher Clearance Level. I agree the actions in a Proposal are individual, but it‘s not the question whether such an individual action creates a Rule.


08-04-2010 02:45:53 UTC

against per Hix; the text, in my opinion, is such that it considers the proposal as a whole.


08-04-2010 12:24:11 UTC


Ienpw III:

08-04-2010 23:56:11 UTC