Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 10:48, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a > > player. > > That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of > "registration" to make a person become a player if that person recently > deregistered. R689 says 'To "register" someone is to flip that person's Citizenship switch from Unregistered to Registered.'. That sounds like a definition to me: if a rule says a person can't be registered, the rule is saying a person's Citizenship switch can't be flipped to Registered. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a > player. That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of "registration" to make a person become a player if that person recently deregistered.
Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
I think this was meant to go to DIS. -- Forwarded message - From: Edward Murphy 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 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered"
> then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does.
I think at this point it would only save nch one week, so I don't know
if I will bother submitting this. But here's a proto:
Title: Fresh start v3
Co-authors: G.
Adoption index: 3.1
Text: {
If nch has publicly consented to abide by the rules in clear reference
to this proposal, and not withdrawn consent, then enact a new
power-3.1 rule with the text: "The proposal that enacted this rule CAN
cause a player to be registered.", register nch, then repeal that
rule.
If nch is registered, grant em 1 blot.
}
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/2019 4:42 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/3/19 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> We added "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" to >> R2140 to solve that - but R2140 still only applies to instruments below >> power-3. > > > How does that solve the problem? If I understand the issue correctly, the > power-1 rule wouldn't be blocked by R2140, since it wouldn't be modifying a > "substantive aspect" of the proposal (it wouldn't be changing the proposal > itself at all), it would just happen to say that the proposal's effects > would be INEFFECTIVE. Whether or not a proposal clause is prohibited from takes effect certainly "affects the instrument's operation" because the taking effect *is* its operation. "Any aspect" includes what its text is allowed to do in a given situation, not just the contents of its text. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 7:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: We added "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" to R2140 to solve that - but R2140 still only applies to instruments below power-3. How does that solve the problem? If I understand the issue correctly, the power-1 rule wouldn't be blocked by R2140, since it wouldn't be modifying a "substantive aspect" of the proposal (it wouldn't be changing the proposal itself at all), it would just happen to say that the proposal's effects would be INEFFECTIVE. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/2019 3:57 PM, Nich Evans wrote: >> R849 clearly prohibits the registration. The "Comptrollor" ban we added >> 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. >> >> -G. >> >> > Not sure I follow? R2140 is P3. R106 "Adopting Proposals" and R2350 > "Proposals" are both also P3, so not less. They should be able to set > something to P>3, right? Am I missing something? A Proposal with P>3 is still subject to R106's "Except as prohibited by other rules" clause in terms of a particular clause taking effect. R849 does the prohibiting for registration before 30 days. There's no method for a power 3.1 proposal "beating out" a Power-3 Rule due to a conflict - R106 just straight up says "if there's a prohibition, the clause doesn't take effect." If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered" then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does. A recent-ish CFJ (can't find it this minute but I'll look harder) found that since R106 had numerical precedence over R2140 (before R2140 was amended), R106 even allowed for a power-1 rule to impose a prohibition on a clause in a power-4 proposal. We added "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" to R2140 to solve that - but R2140 still only applies to instruments below power-3. Since everything in this case is power 3+, that doesn't help. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3764. I assign it to D. Margaux. === CFJ 3764 === If a proposal purporting to register nch was adopted now, then one second later, e would be bound by the rules. == Caller:Murphy Judge: D. Margaux == History: Called by Murphy: 28 Jul 2019 19:03:42 Assigned to D. Margaux: [now] == 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. If it's False, it's False because of an interaction with the Power system, or because I had not consented (which was the original question's intent I think). Even if this is the right judgment it should be reconsidered to include those lines of inquiry. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin 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 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. -G. Not sure I follow? R2140 is P3. R106 "Adopting Proposals" and R2350 "Proposals" are both also P3, so not less. They should be able to set something to P>3, right? Am I missing something? -- Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: 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. Please use spivak or gender neutral 'they' in the future. -- Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
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 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. -G.
