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.