On 6/13/2021 2:18 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > G. wrote: > >> On 2/6/2021 2:24 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: >>> >>> In the interest of confirming whether these changes were effective, I >>> hereby petition Possibly H. Possibly Prime Minister G. to disclose to me >>> any and all unhashed text underlying Second Regulation of G.ravity, >>> >> >> Hm, looks like the Prime Minister never responded to this (I couldn't, I >> wasn't the prime minister - petitions are only directed to officers and >> this is clearly to the office of PM). I hate to leave unifinished >> business around. >> >> I deputize for the Prime Minister to respond to the above petition as >> follows. >> >> The unhashed text indicated above is: >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> LAWS OF G.RAVITY >> >> It is IMPOSSIBLE to cause the regulation to do anything truly stupid, >> or anything that would NOT treat Agora Right Good Forever. >> >> (void where prohibited) >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > CFJ, barring G.: G.'s attempt to deputise for Prime Minister on or about > Tue, 8 Jun 2021 05:39:36 -0700 was effective. > > Caller's arguments: There's an impedance mismatch between the rules on > petitions (which are indeed limited to officers) and my clear intent (to > petition G. specifically). Could that text be interpreted as "if G. > wasn't PM, then the petition was ineffective due to lack of clarity"? > > Here's the ADoP report addressing G. possibly being PM at the time in > question:
Counterarguments: when chosing words that have clear legal effect (petition) and a clear rules target (offices) and an office is clearly mentioned (prime minister, even if the announcement is qualified by "possibly prime minister"), and the action only works in one set of circumstances (as a petition to the PM), deference in ambiguity should be given to the rules process that was explicitly invoked. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-February/014626.html > > I thought there was a CFJ that e wasn't, but I couldn't find one. It's this one: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3899. > Later > ADoP reports maintained the assumption that e wasn't, and they weren't > disputed on that basis (though their self-ratification may not have > affected this particular point, as Trigon was uncontroversially elected > PM on Feb 14, and the next ADoP report reflected that, only addressing > the previous question by omission from the non-self-ratifying history > section). Not sure if it matters, CFJ was called 07 Feb 2021 15:32:46. So the petition was made before any doubts were expressed formally (in the ADoP report or the CFJ). -G.
