On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:09 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > > I call for judgement on the statement "Rule 2211 is a proposal." > > > > Arguments: the precedent of the famous CFJ 1656 implies that rule 2211 > > is a proposal (it states that anything matching the definition of the > > first paragraph of rule 106 is a proposal, and rule 2211 is "making > > other explicit changes to the gamestate" by platonically flipping castes > > to Alpha every month). I'm wondering if that precedent ought to be > > overturned; for one thing, it implies that proposals are trivially > > capable of being amended, otherwise rule 2211 couldn't be amended, and > > yet it has been in the past. > > Particularly troubling is [quoting CFJ 1656]: > Judge Eris's ruling in CFJ 1586 establishes the precedent > that submission is not the only means for the creation of a proposal. > Therefore, I find that the first paragraph of Rule 106 constitutes the > complete definition of a proposal, and so proposal 4963 is in fact a > proposal. > thus relying wholly on a judgement (and a shaky one at that) about > the act of creation (and what constitutes an act of creation) to infer > that no act of creation is necessary for proposals to exist (when > "submitting" is, in fact, and was at the time, confounded with > "becoming" and thus with creation in R106). (R1586 dealt with how to > deal with "copies" of proposals that has previously been created by > submission). Suddenly, I'm very glad that purported proposal results self-ratify. Our whole game custom about proposals created in the act of distribution seems to have been based on a misreading of some old CFJs. I wonder what this means for such proposals, and what it can tell us about amending proposals via rule?
Also, rule 106 defines proposals as documents. With real-life definitions, I believe documents can be amended; my word processor certainly seems to think so. -- ais523
