Subject: acka-research-digest V2 #190
From: [email-masked] (acka-research-digest)
To: [email-masked]

acka-research-digest    Thursday, December 4 1997    Volume 02 : Number 190

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 07:45:39 +0000 ()
From: Duncan Richer <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2447

On Wed, 3 Dec 1997, Aaron V. Humphrey wrote:

> 
> > Replace the text "A round must last at least three days" in Rule 1250.17
> > with the following OPTION delimited text:
> 
> > OPTION
> > A round must last at least three days, or at least until all players other
> > than the Moderator have submitted a legitimate number to the Moderator,
> > whichever comes first.
> > OPTION
> 
> This is not actually the clause that's the problem.  The problem is the
> one that states if the round ends because of the expiration of six days,
> then the Moderator is @kicked.

I know it's not the clause that is currently the problem.  It's just that
I've got all the results for the current round, but I'm not allowed to
release them until 3 days have passed.  I personally don't see why I
should have to wait.

- --
Duncan "" Richer aka
Duncan C. Richer - aka Slakko the Lost Warner Brother - Now Really Lost!
Queens' College -- PhD, Pure Maths, Graph Theory -- Cambridge University

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:39:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408 accepted

I wish I had noticed this sooner, but I didn't.

The first section of Proposal 2408 ("Rule-Harfer") is missing its
closing delimiter:

> Create a new rule numbered 407.1, entitled
> "Rule-Harfer", with the following text:
> 
> "
> The Office of the Rule-Harfer is a Functional Office. The Duties are: 
> 
> [...]
> 
> {{If there is a active player named breadbox, he is appointed to
>  the office of Rule-Harfer}}
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Amend rule 311, "Rule Suites", to replace:
> 
> "
> [...]

This line, being the second occurrence of a lone double-quote, I have
taken as marking the end of the text for the new rule 407.1.

As a result of this, the second section of the proposal - intended to
amend Rule 311 - winds up describing ambiguous and/or meaningless
effects, and so by Rule 104 it is ignored.

Fortunately, I believe that the ambiguity/meaninglessness of that
section permits the "inside-out" mis-interpretation of the delimiters
to not be propagated further, and the last two sections of the
proposal can be interpreted so as to take effect.

Thus, the only unintended effects of Proposal 2408 are to add two
meaninglesss lines of text to the end of Rule 407.1, and to leave Rule
311 unaltered.

Generally, I interpret proposals with some intelligence. When a
proposal contains sections of "quoted" text interspersed with
directions or effects, I'm comfortable with almost any technique for
offsetting the directions from the quoted text (e.g., indenting and/or
separators), as long as it's satisfactorily unambiguous. But when the
author specifically uses line delimiters to mark off where a piece of
quoted text begins and ends, my approach has always been to read that
pretty strictly. After all, why even have delimiters if they can be
ignored?

I believe this approach is consistent with those who have gone before
me. (/dev/joe: Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.)

So, if anyone disagrees with my interpretation of this proposal,
please speak up. I would prefer to try and hash out consensus in the
forum before going the CFJ route.

breadbox
who is, despite all of the above, your new Rule-Harfer

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

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 10:10:47 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408 accepted

> Generally, I interpret proposals with some intelligence. When a
> proposal contains sections of "quoted" text interspersed with
> directions or effects, I'm comfortable with almost any technique for
> offsetting the directions from the quoted text (e.g., indenting and/or
> separators), as long as it's satisfactorily unambiguous. 

Interpreting the single quotes on lines by themselves as meaningless
furniture/effects to be discarded by rule 104 is a possible/reasonable
alternative, given the admission that intelligence is used in *some*
situations.  The proposal does *not* say 'as delimited by single
quotes on lines by themselves'.

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:38:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408 accepted

> Interpreting the single quotes on lines by themselves as meaningless
> furniture/effects to be discarded by rule 104 is a possible/reasonable
> alternative, given the admission that intelligence is used in *some*
> situations.

Possibly - but that pushes things into a rather gray area, it seems.
There's nothing particularly obvious about the double-quote that
indicates it is furniture, or an effect to be discarded.

One reason I am so hesitant to "interpret" delimiters is that they are
needed the most when the delimited text contains sections that look
like end-markers or separators - basically, when using another
technique would be confusing or misleading.

Basically, the proposal is potentially ambiguous. In order to decide
which interpretation to favor, I read it mechanically, shooting for
the lowest common denominator. After all, what do I know? Maybe you've
some wild scam that depends on getting a sentence fragment into the
rules, and this was the best way you could think of to sneak it past
us....

breadbox

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

Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:02:13 -0500
From: Malenkai <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408 accepted

> Basically, the proposal is potentially ambiguous. In order to decide
> which interpretation to favor, I read it mechanically, shooting for
> the lowest common denominator. After all, what do I know? Maybe you've
> some wild scam that depends on getting a sentence fragment into the
> rules, and this was the best way you could think of to sneak it past
> us....

It is tough to try a scam when interpretation ("intelligence") is being
used in some cases.  Scams are only effective when rote application
of the rules is required to override what was intended.  I assure you
that *had* this been a scam (especially for a win), then the rule 104
interpretation I present would have come from somewhere else :-)  
Recall Guy Fawkes misspelling 0of the "Acka:" subject line on a scam.

My only comment was that since it was admitted that proposal effects 
are interpreted with intelligence, and the rules themselves provide no
syntax at this level for proposals (and interpretation of things that
look like delimiters, but could be furniture), and that rule 104 
provides a legal way for what was intended to occur, then the rules
should be interpreted to allow what was intended to occur, since the 
rules do not say what was intended did not occur.

Recent CFJs have allowed potentially ambiguous things to slide through;
I'm not sure why the rules are requiring you to treat this case
inconsistently with these recent CFJs?  In fact, there is a CFJ 
dealing with proposal syntax itself where the intended effect was allowed
to occur awhile back...

Malenkai

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

Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:50:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Brian Raiter <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Acka: Proposal 2408 accepted

After going over this a few more times and considering all the
possibilities, I've decided to interpret Proposal 2408, essentially,
in the form that was intended. (Though I can't help but feel that I'm
opening up a can of worms.) Sorry.

breadbox
remember folks: double-check your delimiters

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

End of acka-research-digest V2 #190
***********************************