Maud wrote:
On 3/28/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, this may be trivially true due to Rule 2034.
Murphy,
Since I was running out of time in which to judge, I had to submit a
version of the judgement which did not take into account your argument
regarding rule 2034. You may wish to submit a concurring opinion.
Anyone want to add their signature to the following?
In addition to the reasons cited by Judge Maud, the signers of this
Concurring Opinion believe that it may be possible to adopt any
proposal as follows:
1) The Assessor announces that the proposal succeeds.
2) No player challenges the Assessor's announcement for a week.
3) Rule 2034 ratifies the Assessor's announcement.
Rule 2034 has Power=3, and implicitly claims precedence ("the announced
result is the true result of that decision, even if it would otherwise
be in error.") over any rule attempting to declare the result to be
something else - specifically Rule 955, which does not claim precedence
over anything.
Note that the effect of an adopted proposal is determined by Rule 106,
which still depends in significant part on index comparisons ("its power
is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index").
