[CHALLENGE] Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Proposal. viewtopic.php?f=9&t=543312
Target. viewtopic.php?p=38976871#p38976871

Pursuant to section 2(b) of the GenSec procedures:

Upon making decision to review, GenSec will notify the author in their drafting thread (if one exists). GenSec will create a separate [CHALLENGE] thread, where the reason for review is given and where the author and players can participate in debate about the proposal’s legality.

This challenge thread has been created to the discuss a sua sponte challenge taken up on the topic of the current at vote resolution. Viz, viewtopic.php?p=41928829#p41928829,

the phrase "restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano" is not a plausible reading of the proposal and that "activity of a volcano" must include secondary magma chambers

---

Below is a response given in the thread to the notice given (also pursuant to the procedures) that is of relevance to this challenge discussion.

A challenge has been moved sua sponte against this proposal on grounds that the phrase "restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano" is not a plausible reading of the proposal and that "activity of a volcano" must include secondary magma chambers. It has been taken up.

I again argue that the crux of the resolution is not that the activity is solely exclusive to the core chamber, and can include secondary chambers, but that the reason for repeal is that so many volcanic activities are not related to gas or magma build up in any chamber, and in fact the complete lack of volcanic activity can still cause devastating events such as lahars, landslides, avalanches, glacial floods, etc, which is the purpose of the repeal.

However, I also understand that the GA, by its very nature, must be specific and at times pedantic by necessity - should the challenge succeed, the repeal will be re-submitted as I believe every other part of the repeal stands on their own. At the very least, the fact that "volcanic activity" is defined as "activity of a volcano" is circular and not a definition at all - is this any and all activities that may occur at a volcano (which could include droughts, floods, blizzards, hurricanes, wind storms, wildfires, etc) or activity that involves simply magma eruptions (which excludes dome collapses, most earthquakes, gas build up, ashfall, post-eruption famines) or activity that is geothermal in nature? The target resolution makes no effort to define the term, and there is no universal consensus IRL within the vulcanological or geological scientific communities about the scope of "volcanic activity".

As someone who actually lives in a volcanic area, VAC would not offer any benefits whatsoever to my area because we are not in an active volcanic zone, despite being surrounded by long-dormant and extinct volcanoes and many fatalities from non-volcanic activities as a result of the loose sediment and soil that are common in their vicinity, and earthquakes caused by the tectonics that created the volcanoes (which means the earthquakes are not 'volcanic activity' but are more common at volcanic areas).

[Imperium Anglorum]

A challenge has been moved sua sponte against this proposal on grounds that the phrase "restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano" is not a plausible reading of the proposal and that "activity of a volcano" must include secondary magma chambers. It has been taken up.

I again argue that the crux of the resolution is not that the activity is solely exclusive to the core chamber, and can include secondary chambers, but that the reason for repeal is that so many volcanic activities are not related to gas or magma build up in any chamber, and in fact the complete lack of volcanic activity can still cause devastating events such as lahars, landslides, avalanches, glacial floods, etc, which is the purpose of the repeal.

However, I also understand that the GA, by its very nature, must be specific and at times pedantic by necessity - should the challenge succeed, the repeal will be re-submitted as I believe every other part of the repeal stands on their own. At the very least, the fact that "volcanic activity" is defined as "activity of a volcano" is circular and not a definition at all - is this any and all activities that may occur at a volcano (which could include droughts, floods, blizzards, hurricanes, wind storms, wildfires, etc) or activity that involves simply magma eruptions (which excludes dome collapses, most earthquakes, gas build up, ashfall, post-eruption famines) or activity that is geothermal in nature? The target resolution makes no effort to define the term, and there is no universal consensus IRL within the vulcanological or geological scientific communities about the scope of "volcanic activity".

As someone who actually lives in a volcanic area, VAC would not offer any benefits whatsoever to my area because we are not in an active volcanic zone, despite being surrounded by long-dormant and extinct volcanoes and many fatalities from non-volcanic activities as a result of the loose sediment and soil that are common in their vicinity, and earthquakes caused by the tectonics that created the volcanoes (which means the earthquakes are not 'volcanic activity' but are more common at volcanic areas).

I understand the frustration, having been on the opposite side of the fence with a proposal I thought legal challenged at vote on grounds that I thought were dubious or minor. This post is to establish that this intervention against a specific clause, even if that clause is of little relevance to the arguments in the repeal as a whole, isn't novel. I also understand that this is a post really about precedent and it will probably not ease that frustration except probably in a solely intellectual way. (Basically I want to establish that GenSec is not trying to screw you specifically over.) There are two cases to look at.

The first was Repeal "Ban on Secret Treaties" [2018] GAS 6. In that case, an author's statement – that was frankly not that relevant to the crux of the repeal; but then again it was never entirely clear what the "crux" of that repeal ever was – that the target "concentrates only on 'secret diplomacy' taking place during wartime" was found to be illegal. I think the parallels here are closest since that case saw a sua sponte action, which was against a single claim in a single sentence, which made a broad assertion, which itself was that some scope (here a definition and there applicability) was too narrow, which led to a discard at vote. Assuming arguendo that the "core chamber" claim is untenable, the similarities are uncanny.

The second was against one of my proposals, Repeal "On Universal Jurisdiction" [2018] GAS 9, which had already been discarded in [2018] GAS 8 putting me under the (not unreasonable) assumption that the proposal was fine. I won't lie, I still think I was screwed over when the decision's exact logic wasn't then applied literally three days later in [2018] GAS 10: see this discussion; Separatist Peoples making that exact point; either the claim in Repeal oUJ is legal and so is that in Repeal PtEoI or the claim in Repeal oUJ is illegal and so is that in Repeal PtEoI. But re-litigating something from six years ago aside, the relevant decision rule still applies. "Based on one sentence that could be passed off as mere exaggeration, yet still clearly and undeniably misrepresents its target, we find the proposed repeal illegal for an Honest Mistake violation". My proposal was then discarded at vote.

And since the last proposal was also discarded, I'll quote Bears Armed in the discussion on [2018] GAS 10:

Two discards needed in a row...
"<sigh...>*

[Elyreia]

I will remain adamant in my defense of the repeal, but at the end of the day, it is both inevitable that a resolution I would have written to be challenged or failed in some way, and for my own arguments to be pilfered with holes.

If any members of GenSec have questions for me regarding the draft, I will answer any to the best of my ability.

Beyond that, while I will make modifications to resubmit, I will humbly accept the decision of GenSec on the challenge without complaint, and make necessary changes for future submission attempts to address the arguments laid out.

I will watch this thread with equal parts eagerness and dread.

[Simone Republic]

I am not a geologist.

"\core chamber of a volcano" is not a plausible reading of the proposal and that "activity of a volcano" must include secondary magma chambers

This seems to be what Wikipedia says.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano#T ... _eruptions

There's also some scientific research suggesting that volcanos are not even necessarily from magma chambers in the first palce.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/189371/ ... an-molten/ 

There's also ongoing research into whether volcanoes on Io are of the same kind as that of earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanism_on_Io

And since the last proposal was also discarded, I'll quote Bears Armed in the discussion on [2018] GAS 10:

Two discards needed in a row...
"<sigh...>*

Life happens.

[The Overmind]

I disagree with the argument underlying this challenge.

"Veracity (formerly Honest Mistake): Any interpretation of a passed resolution a repeal clause makes must be plausible under a plain reading of the resolution. If multiple potential readings of a passed resolution exist, a repeal clause cannot rely on one so self-detrimental that no entity would apply it." (Emphasis mine).

1. When one defines something in their proposal, they are effectively omitting all other definitions, including the plain reading of the term.
2. When the supplied definition is circular, it creates a situation in which the so-defined term is opened up to speculation that might be implausible to a plain reading of the term.
   
   1. This is because there is some implied specific non-standard definition that the author had in mind, but to which we have no access.
   2. This creates a situation in which a repeal author is left to speculate about what the term means.
3. Given this, the first part of the rule does not apply, and instead the second portion becomes relevant:
   
   Veracity (formerly Honest Mistake): Any interpretation of a passed resolution a repeal clause makes must be plausible under a plain reading of the resolution. If multiple potential readings of a passed resolution exist, a repeal clause cannot rely on one so self-detrimental that no entity would apply it." (Emphasis mine).
   
   
   1. From the argument above, the definition has some non-standard reading based on unknown authorial intent for which context clues from the rest of the proposal, not a plain reading of the defined term, supply a repeal author with a range of possible interpretations.
   2. There are therefore "multiple potential readings"
   3. The question before GenSec then is reduced to: is the reading supplied "one so self-detrimental that no entity would apply it"?
   4. If the answer is yes, the proposed repeal is illegal. If the answer is no, the proposed repeal is legal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

[*]When the supplied definition is circular, it creates a situation in which the so-defined term is opened up to speculation that might be implausible to a plain reading of the term.

1. This is because there is some implied specific non-standard definition that the author had in mind, but to which we have no access.
2. This creates a situation in which a repeal author is left to speculate about what the term means.

[*]Given this, the first part of the rule does not apply, and instead the second portion becomes relevant:
[/list]
[*]Given this, the first part of the rule does not apply...

I don't speak for my colleagues but I can't imagine anyone taking the quoted argument seriously in this instance.

The question at hand is what the definition ("activity of a volcano") means. There is no circular reference as when someone defines a term the definition is read plainly. Veracity (= honest mistake) does not take target or repeal author intent into account regardless; only the resolution text is law. The statement of "this", presumably that "a repeal author [may] speculate about what [some] term means", doesn't get around veracity; it just returns it to the start. Whatever a repeal author speculates still must comply with the veracity rule.

The argument given here would apply really only something very similar to the following. A proposal has a definition like "in this resolution, QQOITGB means QQOITGB". Notably this isn't like where the term defined has a plain reading (eg "debris means debris"). Even in that circumstance, an author would not be able to make wild assertions that QQOITGB means "disc-shaped planetary time cubes on Omicron Convenience III" or "quadratic quotients orbitally integrated in temporally generated brassieres". Instead they should follow the unintelligibility canon – see Scalia and Garner Reading law (2012) pp 134–137 – which holds unintelligible text inoperative.

[The Overmind]

[*]When the supplied definition is circular, it creates a situation in which the so-defined term is opened up to speculation that might be implausible to a plain reading of the term.

1. This is because there is some implied specific non-standard definition that the author had in mind, but to which we have no access.
2. This creates a situation in which a repeal author is left to speculate about what the term means.

[*]Given this, the first part of the rule does not apply, and instead the second portion becomes relevant:
[/list]
[*]Given this, the first part of the rule does not apply...

I don't speak for my colleagues but I can't imagine anyone taking the quoted argument seriously in this instance.

The question at hand is what the definition ("activity of a volcano") means. There is no circular reference as when someone defines a term the definition is read plainly. Veracity (= honest mistake) does not take target or repeal author intent into account regardless; only the resolution text is law. The statement of "this", presumably that "a repeal author [may] speculate about what [some] term means", doesn't get around veracity; it just returns it to the start. Whatever a repeal author speculates still must comply with the veracity rule.

The argument given here would apply really only something very similar to the following. A proposal has a definition like "in this resolution, QQOITGB means QQOITGB". Notably this isn't like where the term defined has a plain reading (eg "debris means debris"). Even in that circumstance, an author would not be able to make wild assertions that QQOITGB means "disc-shaped planetary time cubes on Omicron Convenience III" or "quadratic quotients orbitally integrated in temporally generated brassieres". Instead they should follow the unintelligibility canon – see Scalia and Garner Reading law (2012) pp 134–137 – which holds unintelligible text inoperative.

The argument does not require GenSec to take authorial intent into account. That portion of the argument only supports the claim that circularly defining something in a proposal, even something with a real world plain reading counterpart, omits the plain reading in favor of a definition that has no ground truth interpretation. As in all proposals with definitions, the only definition the term has is the one in the proposal, and in this case it provides no clues about what that definition actually is, whatever it might have been in the author's head. So, naturally, as happened in precisely this case, a repeal author must select an interpretation that is plausible from a plain reading of the term in the target. The only thing you could maybe argue is that a plain reading of the term, as used in the target itself, demonstrates the implausibility of the repeal's reading. Otherwise, it follows that the only other consideration is if the repeal meets Veracity's other condition.

[The Overmind]

As a side note, I find it equally unlikely that very many people, in general, would take this last minute, hail Mary, sua sponte seriously when it's so ad hoc and quibbling, but I took it seriously regardless and actually addressed its claim without adding my two cents about how credible it is. So let's stick to arguments and not the attitude you've taken toward that argument or how your peers might or might not share that attitude. That should be particularly obvious decorum when you are trying to set a new precedent about proposal reading that doesn't follow from the rules (with respect to "unintelligibility canon").

[Elyreia]

I think the very fact that we can quibble about the definition and what it does or does not cover, is precisely two of the many reasons for the target's repeal:
Ambiguous language that makes implementation difficult, and;
A definition that can change depending on how the nation desires to read said definition.

The repeal challenges the target resolution on three grounds: that the language is very loose and ambiguous, that the resolution has effectively been replaced already making it redundant, and that there are many dangers at volcanoes that could very easily not be volcanic-related in scope.

The challenge, as I'm interpreting, is essentially against the definition as set by the repeal author (myself) in a plain text reading of the target resolution (e.g. "volcanic activity" being a core magma chamber vs any number magma chambers that may exist). However, if the challengers and GenSec themselves cannot agree on a definition by which activities "volcanic activity" does or does not include, does this not actually reinforce the idea that the target resolution requires repeal because it should not have been allowed to pass in the first place with such an ill-defined term which is core to its entire existence?

[Bisofeyr]

I think the very fact that we can quibble about the definition and what it does or does not cover, is precisely two of the many reasons for the target's repeal:
Ambiguous language that makes implementation difficult, and;
A definition that can change depending on how the nation desires to read said definition.

The repeal challenges the target resolution on three grounds: that the language is very loose and ambiguous, that the resolution has effectively been replaced already making it redundant, and that there are many dangers at volcanoes that could very easily not be volcanic-related in scope.

The challenge, as I'm interpreting, is essentially against the definition as set by the repeal author (myself) in a plain text reading of the target resolution (e.g. "volcanic activity" being a core magma chamber vs any number magma chambers that may exist). However, if the challengers and GenSec themselves cannot agree on a definition by which activities "volcanic activity" does or does not include, does this not actually reinforce the idea that the target resolution requires repeal because it should not have been allowed to pass in the first place with such an ill-defined term which is core to its entire existence?

On my phone, apologies for any issues that arise from that.

This is unrelated to the actual quality of the repeal’s arguments, which I find quite solid. At the end of the day, it does make the straightforward factual claim of essentially “volcanic activity consists of [x]”. Thus, if there is one genuine counterexample, that claim you made can be considered as not true. I am no expert on volcanoes or geology, but I found one counterexample within 30 seconds of looking (which I posted in the proposal thread, which I believe led to this, thanks by the way). I am sure there are other counterexamples that field experts can bring up.

I think the strongest argument against this challenge is that veracity ought not to cover real-world factual inaccuracies and instead only rely on the actual text present. If someone were to write a repeal of Death Penalty Ban that said “On average, capital punishment is fat cheaper than the alternative”, it is not GenSec’s position to gauge the truthfulness of that claim. Similarly, if a repeal makes a claim that activity of a volcano is only a specific kind of activity, that is a real-world factual claim we cannot rely on GenSec to fact-check. That might make it a bad argument for repeal, but not a violation of veracity.

Sorry for my delay in commenting on this.

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***

---

Proposal: Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"
Date: 3 September 2024
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 0–3. The Ice States took no part in considering this challenge.
Action: Veracity

Opinion forthcoming.

2024gas11

[Imperium Anglorum]

I think the very fact that we can quibble about the definition and what it does or does not cover, is precisely two of the many reasons for the target's repeal:
Ambiguous language that makes implementation difficult, and;
A definition that can change depending on how the nation desires to read said definition.

The repeal challenges the target resolution on three grounds: that the language is very loose and ambiguous, that the resolution has effectively been replaced already making it redundant, and that there are many dangers at volcanoes that could very easily not be volcanic-related in scope.

The challenge, as I'm interpreting, is essentially against the definition as set by the repeal author (myself) in a plain text reading of the target resolution (e.g. "volcanic activity" being a core magma chamber vs any number magma chambers that may exist). However, if the challengers and GenSec themselves cannot agree on a definition by which activities "volcanic activity" does or does not include, does this not actually reinforce the idea that the target resolution requires repeal because it should not have been allowed to pass in the first place with such an ill-defined term which is core to its entire existence?

This is unrelated to the actual quality of the repeal’s arguments, which I find quite solid. At the end of the day, it does make the straightforward factual claim of essentially “volcanic activity consists of [x]”. Thus, if there is one genuine counterexample, that claim you made can be considered as not true. I am no expert on volcanoes or geology, but I found one counterexample within 30 seconds of looking (which I posted in the proposal thread, which I believe led to this, thanks by the way). I am sure there are other counterexamples that field experts can bring up.

I think the strongest argument against this challenge is that veracity ought not to cover real-world factual inaccuracies and instead only rely on the actual text present. If someone were to write a repeal of Death Penalty Ban that said “On average, capital punishment is fat cheaper than the alternative”, it is not GenSec’s position to gauge the truthfulness of that claim. Similarly, if a repeal makes a claim that activity of a volcano is only a specific kind of activity, that is a real-world factual claim we cannot rely on GenSec to fact-check. That might make it a bad argument for repeal, but not a violation of veracity.

As to the portion I underlined in Biso's post, that was in the March 2024 open hypothetical. It was also a trap. Respondents should not have found the proposal illegal on the grounds that the claim is wrong. Review of such claims is rejected by precedent [2018] GAS 4 (analogously); (2016) 1 IAM 43; and (2015) 2 IAM 18.

What's under dispute here, however, is essentially the question of what "activity of a volcano" (the definition) means in plain English. This is separate from the unreviewable fact claims about the world generally and are not about the resolution or the GA legal context; only fact claims that directly engage with a resolution are reviewable. What "activity of a volcano" means is subjected to a plausible reading test. What readings are plausible are those which can be supported by the words used: "the law does what the law says". But what the law says isn't a free-for-all where you can just make stuff up; it is subject to the canons of statutory construction. See eg Christian Democrats NationStates (25 Feb 2017); Separatist Peoples NationStates (3 May 2017, 10 Nov 2018, 1 May 2019).

Edit. This is a link to the prompt for the March 2024 open hypothetical. https://github.com/ifly6/ifly-images/bl ... hetical.md. This is my discussion of general themes from the responses. https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... -opinions/.

[B1G JIM SLADE]

Man this sho make me wanna get involved in the GA again!

[Elyreia]

I think the very fact that we can quibble about the definition and what it does or does not cover, is precisely two of the many reasons for the target's repeal:
Ambiguous language that makes implementation difficult, and;
A definition that can change depending on how the nation desires to read said definition.

The repeal challenges the target resolution on three grounds: that the language is very loose and ambiguous, that the resolution has effectively been replaced already making it redundant, and that there are many dangers at volcanoes that could very easily not be volcanic-related in scope.

The challenge, as I'm interpreting, is essentially against the definition as set by the repeal author (myself) in a plain text reading of the target resolution (e.g. "volcanic activity" being a core magma chamber vs any number magma chambers that may exist). However, if the challengers and GenSec themselves cannot agree on a definition by which activities "volcanic activity" does or does not include, does this not actually reinforce the idea that the target resolution requires repeal because it should not have been allowed to pass in the first place with such an ill-defined term which is core to its entire existence?

This is unrelated to the actual quality of the repeal’s arguments, which I find quite solid. At the end of the day, it does make the straightforward factual claim of essentially “volcanic activity consists of [x]”. Thus, if there is one genuine counterexample, that claim you made can be considered as not true. I am no expert on volcanoes or geology, but I found one counterexample within 30 seconds of looking (which I posted in the proposal thread, which I believe led to this, thanks by the way). I am sure there are other counterexamples that field experts can bring up.

I think the strongest argument against this challenge is that veracity ought not to cover real-world factual inaccuracies and instead only rely on the actual text present. If someone were to write a repeal of Death Penalty Ban that said “On average, capital punishment is fat cheaper than the alternative”, it is not GenSec’s position to gauge the truthfulness of that claim. Similarly, if a repeal makes a claim that activity of a volcano is only a specific kind of activity, that is a real-world factual claim we cannot rely on GenSec to fact-check. That might make it a bad argument for repeal, but not a violation of veracity.

As to the portion I underlined in Biso's post, that was in the March 2024 open hypothetical. It was also a trap. Respondents should not have found the proposal illegal on the grounds that the claim is wrong. Review of such claims is rejected by precedent [2018] GAS 4 (analogously); (2016) 1 IAM 43; and (2015) 2 IAM 18.

What's under dispute here, however, is essentially the question of what "activity of a volcano" (the definition) means in plain English. This is separate from the unreviewable fact claims about the world generally and are not about the resolution or the GA legal context; only fact claims that directly engage with a resolution are reviewable. What "activity of a volcano" means is subjected to a plausible reading test. What readings are plausible are those which can be supported by the words used: "the law does what the law says". But what the law says isn't a free-for-all where you can just make stuff up; it is subject to the canons of statutory construction. See eg Christian Democrats NationStates (25 Feb 2017); Separatist Peoples NationStates (3 May 2017, 10 Nov 2018, 1 May 2019).

Edit. This is a link to the prompt for the March 2024 open hypothetical. https://github.com/ifly6/ifly-images/bl ... hetical.md. This is my discussion of general themes from the responses. https://imperiumanglorum.wordpress.com/ ... -opinions/.

So what does the law say "activity of a volcano" is because, as argued in my repeal, apparently the definition of volcanic activity is the activity of a volcano, which is circular and self-defining and provides no guidance.

But the challenge has succeeded so there's no point in arguing semantics anymore.

[Elyreia]

Five pages and I think four? Maybe three, challenge opinions later. . .

[Elyreia]

I would please prefer getting the full opinion that is months overdue now so I may adequately address the concerns for resubmission.

After my 5 page bump last time, this one was on page 8.

[The Ice States]

I would please prefer getting the full opinion that is months overdue now so I may adequately address the concerns for resubmission.

After my 5 page bump last time, this one was on page 8.

I am obviously recused from this case, but I've re-raised this privately; I think I can say that an opinion has been written already and is awaiting one signature.

Edit: It has now been signed and will be published imminently.

[Elyreia]

I would please prefer getting the full opinion that is months overdue now so I may adequately address the concerns for resubmission.

After my 5 page bump last time, this one was on page 8.

I am obviously recused from this case, but I've re-raised this privately; I think I can say that an opinion has been written already and is awaiting one signature.

Edit: It has now been signed and will be published imminently.

I appreciate the confirmation that's its been sitting in a byzantine labyrinth rather than simply forgotten entirely. It can be discouraging to be forgotten.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Apologies on the delay for this opinion. It should have been released more promptly.

*** Opinion of the Secretariat ***
Proposal: Repeal "Volcanic Activity Convention"
Date: 3 Sep 2024
Decision: Proposal is illegal, 0–4
Action: Veracity

Desmosthenes and Burke wrote the opinion, joined by Separatist Peoples, Imperium Anglorum, and Barfleur. The Ice States and Haymarket Riot took no part in this decision.

Opinion

[1] GenSec engaged in sua sponte review of the proposal Repeal “Volcanic Activity Convention” under the Veracity rule. As relevant here the proposal claims “the definition of ‘volcanic activity’ only as ‘the activity of a volcano’, … but also erroneously restricts the resolution to only activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber of a volcano, to the exclusion of other volcano-related events, such as lahars, tsunamis, post-eruption famines, or earthquakes...."

[2] We hold when a repeal asserts a proposal to be limited to a single meaning, the existence of any other plausible meaning is sufficient to establish a violation. We are guided in this conclusion by Repeal “Ban on Secret Treaties” [2018] GAS 6 and Repeal “On Universal Jurisdiction” [2018] GAS 9. In both cases, the challenged repeals rested on extremely narrow interpretations of their targets. In both prior cases, GenSec found a violation due to the existence of an alternative interpretation.

[3] The repeal, therefore, rises or falls on whether or not there exists any interpretation of “the activity of a volcano” that extends beyond “activity caused due to magma or gas buildup within the core chamber”. A cursory search reveals that, at a minimum, volcanoes with more than one magma chamber exist. Therefore, at least one alternative interpretation exists. For the reasons above, the repeal violates the veracity rule and cannot proceed.

2024gas13