Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 8/2/2019 6:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I don't need to make anything up, the answer to the question of what a > rule change is lies in R105. There is some ambiguity in R105 in terms of "compound" rule changes within a single Rule, though it may not be relevant to your CFJ at all. For example. Most people would read the following as a "single" rule change: Amend Rule X by replacing "A" with "B" and by replacing "C" with "D". But would take the following to be two rule changes, even if they occurred right after each other in the same proposal: Amend Rule X by replacing "A" with "B". Amend Rule X by replacing "C" with "D". And then there's this: Amend Rule X by replacing "A" with "B" then by replacing "C B" with "C D". (the first part has to happen 'before' the second part because the first part creates new instances of "C B" to replace- so is that one rule change or two?) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 8/2/19 9:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE. In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact, would that be sufficient to demonstrate Ossification? Because I am confident that I can draft such a rule. Or is it the case that the enactment of a single new rule might involve multiple "rule changes"? And if that's the case, then what does it mean to have a "single" or "multiple" rule change? Is each sentence of a new rule a separate "change"? Or each clause? Or is it divided into separate changes in some other way? In my opinion, when you have a single rule being enacted, then there really is no principled way to say whether it's a single rule change or multiple changes, except I guess if the new rule consisted of changing a single letter or number... I don't need to make anything up, the answer to the question of what a rule change is lies in R105. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE. In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact, would that be sufficient to demonstrate Ossification? Because I am confident that I can draft such a rule. Or is it the case that the enactment of a single new rule might involve multiple "rule changes"? And if that's the case, then what does it mean to have a "single" or "multiple" rule change? Is each sentence of a new rule a separate "change"? Or each clause? Or is it divided into separate changes in some other way? In my opinion, when you have a single rule being enacted, then there really is no principled way to say whether it's a single rule change or multiple changes, except I guess if the new rule consisted of changing a single letter or number... > On Aug 2, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: > > It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first > making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the > arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is > POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical > ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what > the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly. On 8/2/2019 5:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3765. I assign it to Jason Cobb. === CFJ 3765 === Agora is ossified. ==
