I think this was meant to go to DIS.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com>
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 <ke...@uw.edu>
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.
