I think this was meant to go to DIS.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
To: Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu>

G. wrote:

> On 8/3/2019 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>  > Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under
>  > Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be
> registered
>  > for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch"
> would
>  > constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days
> after
>  > his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule
>  > 849.
> Oh, duh.  Of course Proposal 8227 won't work to register nch despite being
> power-3.1, regardless of nch's consent.  R106:
>                      Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
>        takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
>        changes that it specifies.
> R849 clearly prohibits the registration.  The "Comptrollor" ban we added
[869 actually]
> in R2140 recently to prevent lower-powered rules from prohibiting proposal
> clauses in higher-powered proposals doesn't apply, because R2140 includes
> the "below the power of this rule" qualifier and R849 is power 3.

I didn't read this until after my recent judgement. Thoughts:

   * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a
     player. It does prohibits the Rules compelling a non-player to act,
     but making a non-player a player would bypass that clause.

   * A rule stating "a player SHALL _____" does attempt to bind players
     to obey that particular rule, but for a passively-registered player,
     it would be ineffective unless it took precedence over R869's "The
     Rules CANNOT otherwise bind" clause.

Reply via email to