============================ Appeal 1499a ============================
Appeal initiated: 09 Jun 2004 23:44:11 GMT
Assigned to Murphy (panelist): 15 Jun 2004 07:25:58 GMT
Assigned to RedKnight (panelist): 15 Jun 2004 07:25:58 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr (panelist): 15 Jun 2004 07:25:58 GMT
OscarMeyr moves to SUSTAIN: 22 Jun 2004 03:08:14 GMT
Murphy moves to SUSTAIN: 22 Jun 2004 04:23:04 GMT
RedKnight recused (panelist): 29 Jun 2004 07:25:58 GMT
Assigned to root (panelist): 04 Jul 2004 06:14:39 GMT
root moves to REVERSE: 04 Jul 2004 15:45:52 GMT
Final decision (SUSTAIN): 04 Jul 2004 15:45:52 GMT
Panelist OscarMeyr's Arguments:
R2050 delegated the duty of repealing R2050 to the Herald. Accordingly, I
find that the Herald, not the rule itself, was the instrument of the rule
change. The question now is, did the Herald have the power to make this
R107 specifies that a rule change must be written down (for sufficiently
vague values of "written") before it is voted on. This rule change was
documented, in the Ruleset itself, and was voted on, at the time that R2050
was adopted. Had R2050 repealed itself, even on the Herald's announcement,
I would have no issue with this scenario. In short, I concur with the
Trial Judge on the self-repealing capability of Rules.
But R2050 delegated the authority to repeal itself, instead of employing
it. Can a rule delegate authority to a Player to make a rule change
outside of the proposal system? Upon a review of the Trial Judge's
arguments, I concur with the Court's findings -- that a Player has an
inherent power of zero, and cannot unilaterally make a Rule Change.
Proposals are the proper way to do it.
Accordingly, I move to SUSTAIN.
Panelist Murphy's Arguments:
Rule 2050 attempted to have the Herald perform the repeal, but
the Herald has a Power of zero, so Rule 1322 prevents the repeal.
I move to SUSTAIN.
Panelist root's Arguments:
Appellant Eris's Arguments:
Rule 1322 specifies the Power
of the instrument which _specifies_ the Rule Change. Rule 2025 specified
the Rule Change, the Herald was merely the executor of it.
Judge Kolja addressed this argument in eir original decision, and I quote:
The crucial point is whether the requirement of 1322 is met. This
depends on which entity 'specified' the rule change. I do not believe
that it was the rule itself (otherwise my reasoning above about
rule-triggered repeals would apply, and the repeal would stand). 2050
only authorized (or tried to authorize) its repeal by another
instrument, but it did not actually trigger it (this required a
decision by the Herald and the 'without objection' routine - without
this action from the Herald the rule would have continued to exist).
Unfortunately, this paragraph does not go into depth on Judge Kolja's
underlying reasons for finding that R2050 authorized but did not specify
the rule change.
The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., defines the word "specify" as
meaning "To state explicitly or in detail", and Webster's Unabridged
Dictionary gives the definition "to designate in words so as to
distinguish from other things". Under these definitions, I find that
R2050 did indeed specify the rule change; to be precise, it specified
the repeal of R2050. In addition, I find that Herald root also specified
the same rule change. However, R1322 only refers to the power of the
_instrument_ which specifies the rule change, and as only one of R2050
and Herald root was an instrument, it must then be referring to R2050.
As Judge Kolja has argued in eir decision, if R2050 was the specifying
instrument, then the repeal would be valid. Accordingly, I move to
OVERTURN and REVERSE.