Jason wrote:
On 6/22/22 18:16, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
On Wed, 2022-06-22 at 14:57 -0700, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
I intend, without objection, to correct the spelling of 'judgment' in Rule
2553 'Win by Paradox' to 'judgement'.
CFJ: The above-quoted message is an intent to clean a rule.
Arguments: It doesn't use the word "clean", but it's obvious which
action is being performed. Is that sufficient to be an intent to
perform the specific action defined in rule 2221? Or is there a
requirement to name the action, in addition to making it clear which
action you'll take?
The above is CFJ 3973.
I assign CFJ 3973 to Murphy.
Scanning the ruleset for "without objection", the only candidates for
causing a rule change are:
a) Cleaning
b) Ratification
c) Some hypothetical rule that theoretically could be published,
distributed, and adopted before the rule change was performed
(assuming that Rule 1728 is interpreted broadly enough, and also
that the Promotor and Assessor both acted quickly enough), but
there is no evidence that 4st was attempting any such thing
While Rule 1728 requires "conspicuously and without obfuscation
specifying ... the method", a higher standard than even "unambiguous and
clear" from Rule 105, I find that the above-quoted message stating
"correct the spelling" is a strong enough similarity to a) to acceptably
identify that method. (If Rule 1728 said "explicitly", then there would
at least be a stronger argument against this case.)
I judge TRUE.
