Chiark Nomic Calls for Judgement (CFJs)

CFJ 1 - Peter Maydell
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:15:12 +0100 (BST)
Judge: Clare Boothby (chosen Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:21:26)
Judgement: True (published Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:14:38)

Statement:
Rule 110 (Winning the Game) states "The way to win the game may not be changed from achieving n points to any other method." This means that it is not permitted to adopt a proposal which would change the rules so as to define a different method of winning the game.

CFJ 2 - Mike Pitt
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 16:47:59 +0100 (BST)
Judge: Dan Sheppard (chosen Sun, 23 Jul 2000 18:13:42)
Judgement: False (published Tue, 25 Jul 2000 22:01:14)

Statement:
Proposal 327 is invalid as it contains two rule changes.

Initiator's Reasoning:
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Duncan Richer wrote: 
Proposal:
To amend rule 307 as follows:
Replace the word "name" with the words "name or pseudonym".
Replace "in 7 bit ASCII" with "as a sequence of graphic characters from
the ECMA-6 International Reference Version".
Rule 104:
A rule change is either (a) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule, or (b) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule, or vice versa. A proposal consists of exactly one proposed rule change.
I think this is two amendments to the rule and is thus two proposals. I'd have accepted it if it has just quoted the new full text. I'd have welcomed the chance to vote on the two parts.

Judge's Reasoning:
I/ Here we are invoking part b of rule 104, the third list member "amendment". So, we are applying a rule change which is
an amendment of a mutable rule
A proposal is exactly one rule change, in this case exactly one amendment of a mutable rule. Amendation is not currently defined by the rules, and must therefore be established on the basis of precedent and custom, according to Rule 209: Judgements must accord with the rules.

II/ On the subject of precedent, Proposal 321 appears the most directly relevant.

Amend Rule 203 (Required Number of Points) by adding the following text before the '.': ", and to have at least 20 points more than any other Player" and by replacing the first 'player' in the text of the rule with 'Player'.
This proposal is clearly in two parts within a single rule. Whilst this proposal was rejected, no CFJ objection was raised during its discussion.
It seems to me rational, and based upon this precedent (albeit limited, there is no -requirement- for a CFJ to be registered on an erroneous proposal), that the adjacency of words in an English sentence should not be relevant to taking a series of modifications as a single amendment, or multiple amendments. Consider for example, the two potential proposals
there should be a blue balloon
and
there should be a balloon which is blue
if we wished to modify this to a green frog, the first would require replacing an adjacent phrase, whereas the latter would require amending non-adjacent words.

III/ So far (300-330,333-335), proposals 303,321,326,327 have been amendments. They have taken the form of single replacement text (303,326) and double replacement text (312,327). It has become conventional, since 301-310, to represent proposals in a particular way, for example specifying the entire rule for enactment (303-320,322-325,328-330,333-334) in some quotation form, to specify the simple fact of a transmutation request (301-302) and overturning request (335). As there have only been four proposed amendments, no clear custom has been established as it has in the case of enactment. Therefore, in absence of a certain custom, it must be seen as acceptable to state an amendment in any unambiguous form (Rule 112: Permissibility of the Unprohibited).
The form of the proposal is clearly unambiguous.

IV/ If proposal 327 had been worded differently, the two phrases being contested may have been adjacent, and so have been a single modification. As in II/, I judged that the adjacency or otherwise of words should not currently be distinguished from the point of view of determining a single amendment, the non-adjacency of the modifications within a rule should not be used as a criterion for distinguishing the modification.
Further, according to III/ as no precedent has been set for the form of an amending proposal, there is no reason to reject one particular means of statement over another. The form where individual parts of a rule are modified in separate string modification notices to form a single amendment (as perhaps in the contested proposal 327) is supported by limited precedent (proposal 321) and is not expressly prohibited by the rules of the game, nor the customs of this game, in my judgement, nor the spirit of the game, in my judgement, and so is allowed. It is clear that a proposal containing a -single- substitution request may be reconstructed from the two phrases, and without restrictions on the form of an amendment, must be considered equivalent to such a proposal.
Therefore, the grounds given are not sufficient to justify the proposal being seen as two modifications.

V/ The spirit of the game is, in one light, for proposals to be suggested by players in the hope of their adoption, and that it is the role of all players eligible to vote to consider voting that proposal through, or otherwise. A player who considers proposing a series of modifications to a rule has in mind an amendment to the game-play, an alteration in the dynamic of the game. That player might consider parts of their goal worth achieving without other parts, or they may not. Within the rules (particularly 104) a player, in the spirit of the game, in my judgement, creates a proposal which they believe is best suited to their ends, be they for the benefit of the game or otherwise. It is for the voters to determine if the proposal is best suited for the ends of the game.
In cases where uncertainty exists over the validity of a proposal (in terms of the rules, the custom, and the spirit) it is in the spirit of the game that a quorum of voters determine whether the proposal should be passed, not that of an individual judge.

A judge is not entitled, under Rule 205, which sets out the role of a judge, to adjudicate on proposals, only on laws and their interpretation.
A judge may only rule on proposals where laws directly affect the nature of proposals. As, with a sufficient majority of voters in favour of an action, an obstructing may be overturned, voters have within their power the ability to adopt a proposal despite judgement. Therefore, in cases where ambiguity or extreme doubt occur as to the validity of a proposal, it is in the spirit of the game, considering the relative assignment of powers set forth by the initial rule-set, appropriate for the proposal to be put to the vote, the individual voters considering the validity of this rule, or otherwise, when casting their vote.
Rule 105 states that a proposal made properly shall be voted upon. Where there is a reasonable degree of doubt in the mind of a judge as to the invalidity of a proposal, it is, in my judgement, in the spirit of the game, appropriate that the proposal be seen as valid for the purposes of voting, leaving to the electorate the ultimate decision in accordance with the balance of power implicit in the initial and current rules.

VI/ Rule 104 is clear as to the nature of an amendment, it is an amendment to a rule, not to the text of a rule, not particularly to the explicit format of a rule. Rule 101 states that players must

always abide by the current ruleset in its explicit format
this implies that the ruleset, and so the rules contained within them have other forms. The rules of a game may be expressed in many languages, character encodings, and so on, and still remain the rules of the game. An authoritative source of rules (the explicit ruleset) may have particular features and importance in the game, but never the less the rules have many forms. Rule 104, in light of 101, is clear that proposals are to the rule in abstract form, not to the explicit format of the rules, else this would have been specified in Rule 104.

VII/ An amendment is, in my opinion, to be considered like this. An amendment comprises a single modification to the rule in abstract, a rule in abstract being a regulator of our game. If a single line of argument can be used by a proposer to suggest that an amendment is simple (not composite), for example "to achieve a certain end", then this, in the mind of the proposer, constitutes a single amendment. It is a matter for subsequent judgement as to whether a proposal is indeed simple, bearing in mind V which states that in the spirit of the game a judge should defer to the electorate in cases of a reasonable degree of doubt.
In my judgement, in this case, is that the amendment could be constituted as a single amendment in abstract, as both apparent modifications extend and retract the range of allowed names in certain formats. The abstract goal of the proposer might have been to modify the boundary in this particular way, manifested as a number of textual changes. An abstract goal might be vague, `to make the game more interesting' `to open up future possibilities', but this does not invalidate that simple aim.
All this is of course, within the bounds of rules, particularly 104 which requires that a proposal must refer to a single rule.

VIII/ Should someone disagree with this judgement, or similar judgements, concerning the unity of an amendment they may seek to overturn the judgement, or campaign that the proposal be rejected. The rules do not currently stipulate the criteria which voters must use in the process of voting, accordingly Rule 112 allows for an individual to vote against a proposal on the grounds of their believe in its malformedness. It is my judgement that in the spirit of the game as a whole, given the initial balance of power between adjudicators and electorate that the latter method be used in preference by an individual, although their right to call for judgement remains.
Should an individual wish to divide an ammending proposal, it being unitary in the mind of the proposer, but not in that of the objector, they should vote the proposal down, and then propose the appropriate separated proposals.
Therefore, I judge that the amendment is simple, and so CFJ2 fails.

Chiark Nomic: Rules, Initial Rules, Proposals, CFJs, Scores