> On Mar 9, 2024, at 6:37 PM, nix via agora-business
> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 1/28/24 00:59, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: "Proposal 9051, as part of its effect, applied a rule change."
>>
>
> I number this CFJ 4062. I assign CFJ 4062 to Gaelan.
This is a draft judgement, as I haven’t done this in a while and would
like assurance I’m not utterly off-base.
I find TRUE.
First, I note that a separate ongoing CFJ (4072) considers the
possibility that this proposal, among many others, may have been
prevented from causing rule changes due to deficiencies in its
distribution. I’ll leave that possibility to Judge nix (to whom I offer
my deepest condolences), and disregard it in this judgement.
With that out of the way:
Most actions in Agora are done by sending a message meeting criteria,
for example the famous requirement to “set[] forth intent ... clearly
and unambiguously” to perform an action by announcement. If this were
an action by announcement, my task would be to find the criteria, and
determine if the message in question met them.
But proposals do not take actions by announcement. Instead, rule 106/46
reads: {
When a proposal takes effect, the proposal applies the changes that
it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other rules.
}
So if a proposal says something happens, the presumption is that *it
happens.* The only reason it wouldn’t is if a rule explicitly prevents
it from doing so. So, what could prevent this?
The only thing I see that comes close - other than the four-day rule,
which is being debated elsewhere - is this paragraph of 105/24: {
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect. [...] Furthermore, if the
change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
on its face.
}
I don’t think the change is ambiguous in the ordinary sense of the
term: I don’t think there’s any plausible interpretation other than
appending the text at the end of the bulleted list. But 105 goes on,
clarifying that a specification is not ambiguous so long as it would
be clear to “any reasonable player”, even if incorrect or unclear on
its face. So I think it’s quite clear that the above provision does
not prevent this change from taking place.
As nothing prevents the change from taking place, it does.
Gaelan
