Arguments (partly quoted from above):

The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In this
case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
therefore believe that V.J. Rada has the power to repeal the
regulation. I will also note that an assumption to the contrary risks
entanglement of official powers and responsibilities from personal
ones. Rule 2526 clearly states that "[t]he Notary CAN, by regulation,
exempt a contract from the preceding paragraph", which assigns the
power to the Notary, not some random player who happens to be Notary
at the moment. In general, we have assumed that a responsibility
ascribed to an officer changes hands with the office, and this case
could call that into dispute. If the honorable judge of this case
cares to rule that official and personal personalities are separate, I
recommend the use of the word persona, since person is already
defined.

-Aris

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:15 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> I favor this one.
>
> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
> to myself without  3 objections.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>
>> I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
>> Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
>> hisofficial capacity as Notary.
>>
>> The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
>> as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
>> person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
>> position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
>> not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
>> regulations.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person. In
>> > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
>> > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
>> > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
>> >> > promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to, so 
>> >> > I
>> >> > believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >> >> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >> > Regulation 1.2
>> >> >> > Contract Sustenance Exemptions
>> >> >> > Parent rule(s): 2526 ("Sustenance Payments", Power 2.4)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments,
>> >> >> > until the date specified:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > History:
>> >> >> > Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 16 November 2017
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Our honorable new Notary is reminded that e may want to repeal this,
>> >> >> and also to start publishing eir report soon.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -Aris
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>

Reply via email to