On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, comex wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> A rule specifically allowing a proposal text to change is no more >> difficult to accept than one changing chamber, AI, etc. But what's >> important is what is needed to actually *adopt* a Proposal. That is >> defined under Agoran Decision rules, not proposal rules. > > No, it's not. The mechanism for a proposal taking effect is defined > in Rule 106.
I'm talking about the procedure for initiating a Decision, which has to happen first. If the procedure isn't initiated and proper ballots cast, it can't take effect. R106 doesn't come into play unless the initiation, voting, and resolution (R107, R683 and R207) is correct. >> Specifically, in R107 and elsewhere, an Agoran Decision is a decision on >> a "matter" to be decided on, which I argue could be defined as referring >> to a particular and specific version of a text, not a different version >> which later bears the same ID number. The specific matter must be in the >> initiation notice for the decision[*]. > > The matter is R106 "determining whether to adopt a proposal". Not any > specific version of a proposal, but 'a proposal'. The other language > in R106 does not indicate that any specific text or version of a > proposal takes effect, but rather the proposal itself: "If the option > selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is > adopted... its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption > index, and then it takes effect." And you've argued that a proposal is changeable, yes, and I've said, if you change the proposal, you change the "matter" to be decided, so you haven't initiated a process for making the decision. It can't take effect until you've (a) initiated the matter and (b) voted upon it to adopt it. The question is, what information is sufficient to identify the "matter" at hand? (e.g. identify the "proposal") A proposal ID is not the proposal; it works only as long as the ID number is an unambiguous reference to "something" (e.g. a text). When the matter is initiated, it must indicate the something, and I would argue that that's a clear reference to a particular text. Once that reference is made, look for example at R683(b). When I voted for the proposal, I was not clearly identifying an ID container regardless of its contents, I was voting (e.g. "clearly identifying") a particular set of contents. There's also the question of what is resolved by the vote collector. Both your and my arguments rely on very broad definitions not contained in the rules (for document, matter, text) and I do very well see your logic, and though reasonable, it occurs in gray areas and of common broad definitions where issues like "good of the game" might come into play, so having generally raised the issue of decision vs. Proposal and matter vs. text for the judge to consider, I'll defer to the (first?) judge. -Goethe
