Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2771
=================== CFJ 2771 (Interest Index = 0) ====================
When a proposal to create a new rule takes effect, two new rules
are created.
========================================================================
Caller: comex
Judge: coppro
Judgement: FALSE
========================================================================
History:
Called by comex: 28 Feb 2010 17:32:58 GMT
Assigned to coppro: 06 Mar 2010 16:41:10 GMT
Judged FALSE by coppro: 21 Mar 2010 19:55:20 GMT
========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Rule 106 specifies that when a proposal to create a rule
takes effect, such a rule is created; however, the proposal is still
an instrument in its own right and arguably goes ahead and creates
another copy of the rule.
========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 09:59 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>
>> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2766
>>
>> =================== CFJ 2766 (Interest Index = 0) ====================
>>
>> Proposal 6632 successfully amended Rule 2282.
>>
>> ========================================================================
>
> TRUE; as ais523 pointed out, Rule 106 applies the changes to the game
state,
> meaning that it has sufficient power.
========================================================================
Judge coppro's Arguments:
The issue at hand in CFJ 2771 is whether or not Rule 106 defined what a
proposal taking effect was or instead provided an additional action that
occurred when a proposal took effect.
Rule 106 itself is unclear in this manner; either interpretation could
be valid. The only other Rule to provide any guidance is Rule 105,
defining Rule Changes, which doesn't provide a whole lot. Therefore, I
will apply the criterion in Rule 217.
In order to find a judgment, I must consider game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Prior to the Rule 106's 24th amendment, the definition of a proposal
taking effect was implicit - the actions described in its text were
performed by the proposal. This seems consistent with all of the
criteria described in Rule 217. The unclear text was intended to provide
a loophole by which a proposal could affect rules greater than its
power, not to cause a proposal to be executed twice. There is no other
basis in Agora, in nomics, or in law for a proposal to take effect
twice, unless there is clear text in a rule saying so.
========================================================================
