The below CFJ is 3811. I assign it to Aris.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3811
=============================== CFJ 3811 ===============================
There exists an Agoran decision for proposal 8317.
==========================================================================
Caller: Gaelan
Judge: Aris
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Gaelan: 10 Feb 2020 00:04:49
Assigned to Aris: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:42 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>>> PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade)
>>> FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg&
>>> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o
>>> PRESENT (0):
>>> BALLOTS: 11
>>> AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0)
>>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>>
>> This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a
>> bunch of power=2 rules. In the distribution message, it is listed as
>> AI-2 in the top part:
>>> 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
>>
>> and AI-1 in the bottom part:
>>
>>> ID: 8317
>>> Title: Zombie trade
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>
>> I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I
>> doubt the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a
>> "new power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong?
>
> The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error
> within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of
> clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly
> distributed at AI=2 now.
>
> -Alexis
I’m not so sure it self-ratified, actually.
1551/21 reads, in part: {
An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however,
if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize
information in the main section, and the main section is internally
consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only
the main section.
}
1607/47 reads, in part: {
The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal
Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public
document purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.
}
The Promotor’s message listed the attributes twice, and the text once, of
each proposal. So this depends on what “this portion” means: does it mean
the list at the top as well as the full proposals below, or just the full
proposals below?
If it means just the full proposals, then the proposal ratified at AI 1.
If it means both, then we’ve got an internally inconsistent document,
according to the 1551 clause I quoted. The question, then, is whether or
not the "document can be divided into a summary section and a main
section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize
information in the main section.” The key bit here is “only purpose”—the
list at the top is actually part of another action (“I hereby distribute
each listed proposal…”), but that action isn’t part of the self-ratifying
document, so maybe in this context it only serves on purpose?
If the “summary” clause applies, then it ratified at AI 1.
If not, the document is internally inconsistent and didn’t ratify at all.
==========================================================================
