I the matter of the CFJ of Chuck's that I have been assigned to judge, I return a verdict of FALSE.
Obviously, this agrees with Charles Walker’s recent judgement, but I also think he slightly misinterpreted the relevant rule, while simultaneously making perfectly reasonable decisions about our practice with respect to rule changes and when they are applied. So, I have some further comments to make. Importantly, the critical phrase in Rule 331 is > The players qualified to judge a statement are the Speaker and > those Voters who voted on the rule change whose voting period > most recently ended Note in particular that this rule *doesn’t* say “the rule change most recently adopted”. Charles Walker’s judgement quite reasonably says that rule changes should be assumed to occur sequentially and as the Speaker announces their adoption. That’s a perfectly reasonable legal fiction, and not a precedent I seek to overturn (the consequences when it comes to resolving proposal actions are just too awful to contemplate). Instead we have to look at the ends of *voting periods*. By the *current* ruleset, when a bunch of proposed rule changes is distributed we have by Rule 333 that > The Speaker shall make one proposal distribution per 24 hours, > numbering and publishing the text of each proposal submitted > since the last distribution. This starts each such proposal's > prescribed voting period, which lasts 24 hours. In other words, the voting periods of proposals distributed simultaneously have the same starting point. This is because the action of making a proposal distribution (the “This” of the last sentence above) starts all of the proposals’ voting periods. Each such proposal has a voting period of the same length (24 hours), so must therefore end at the same time. Therefore, it is impossible to determine “the rule change whose voting period most recently ended” because there may be many such, and so there is an inherently undefined phrase in Rule 333. Moreover, this undefinedness has legal consequence because we need to have one proposal with which to calculate the set of eligible candidate Judges. As the caller says, this was relevant in the case at hand because different sets of people voted on different proposals within the same batch. **However**, the batch in question in this case was not submitted under Rule 333. Indeed, this batch was the one that created Rule 333. The rule was previously initial Rule 205, which said that the voting period of a proposal began when it hit the mailing list (not when the Speaker came to deal with it). This means that scshunt’s proposal really was the proposal whose voting period most recently ended, because that proposal appeared on the mailing list last. Michael On 27/06/13 21:11, Fool wrote: > On 26/06/2013 11:29 PM, Chuck Carroll wrote: >> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The assignment of Walker as >> Judge for the statement "The selection of a Judge for this statement is a >> move whose legality cannot be determined with finality" is a move whose >> legality cannot be determined with finality. > And I roll my virtual 8-sided die and assign this to..... Michael. > You have 24 hours. > (Michael didn't vote on 341, but he did vote on 343, which closed before Chuck > raised this new CFJ. 344-347 close in about an hour, report then.) > -Dan >> Reasoning: same as before. This is just to cover the possibility, as omd >> brought up, that "move" in the context of Rule 219 might mean only an actual >> or at least attempted move, and not merely a hypothetical move (as the >> assignment of a Judge was at the time of the previous CFJ). >> Chuck >> -----Original Message----- >> From: agora-discussion [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Fool >> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 9:10 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: DIS: Agora XX: CFJ assigned to Walker >> On 26/06/2013 10:09 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> I invoke judgement on the following statement: The selection of a >>> Judge for this statement is a move whose legality cannot be determined >>> with finality. >> By rule 331, I must randomly select from myself or those who voted on the >> last proposal, excluding Chuck. The last proposal was 341 (...OR WAS >> IT??) >> My virtual 8-sided die comes up...... Walker again. You have 24 hours. >>> Reasoning: Rule 331 reads, "The Speaker shall choose Judges randomly >>> from the set of qualified players. The players qualified to judge a >>> statement are the Speaker and those Voters who voted on the rule >>> change whose voting period most recently ended, except for the player >>> who invoked judgement, and the player (if any) most recently selected as >> the statement's Judge. >>> The voting periods on proposed rule changes 331 through 341 all ended >>> simultaneously. However, the set of Voters who voted on these rule >>> changes is not identical, but varies by proposal. (Specifically: >>> Steve, Chuck, Walker, Yally, omd, and ehird voted on all eleven >>> proposals; FSX and Blob voted on proposal 340 only; Murphy and Roujo >>> voted on proposal 341 only.) Rule 331 demands that qualified players >>> are the Speaker and Voters who voted on *the* rule change whose voting >> period most recently ended. >>> Singular. Not the last listed or highest numbered among simultaneously >>> ending proposals, and neither the union nor the intersection of Voters >>> who voted on simultaneously ending proposals. There is no method by >>> which to select *which* proposal's voters, from simultaneously ending >>> proposals, are eligible, and thus the selection of a Judge from the >>> Speaker and Voters who voted on any specific one of Proposals 331 >>> through 341 is a move whose legality cannot be determined with finality. >>> [Aside: one might argue that a "rule change" is different from a >>> "proposed rule change," and Rule 331 refers to the former, but that >>> does not resolve the situation, as 331, 332, 333, and 340 were all >>> adopted and thus became rule changes.] >>> Chuck
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
