Index ← 1545 CFJ 1546 1547 → text
==============================  CFJ 1546  ==============================

    In reports and distributions, the Promotor is permitted to add or
    delete whitespace or other formatting text to or from a proposal,
    provided that the substance of the proposal is not altered.


Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Kolja
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by root:                         14 Apr 2005 17:22:09 GMT
Assigned to Kolja:                      15 Apr 2005 08:29:23 GMT
Judged TRUE by Kolja:                   20 Apr 2005 12:12:06 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Although I can't find it right now, there has been a similar judgment
with regard to the Rulekeepor's formatting of the ruleset, which may
serve as a helpful precedent in this case.


Judge Kolja's Arguments:

Let's try the argument chain from the beginning again:

- a proposal is a body of text (1483).
- for proposals contining rules changes, these rule changes must be
written down (107) and guide play in the form they are voted on (107).
- for rule changes, whitespace or capitalization differences between
rules text quoted in a proposal for the purpose of removing or
replacing the quoted text may are not an issue, all other deviations
(in the quotation of text to be replaced or removed) are (1339).
- Presumably  the form of a rule change that is voted on is the one
that was distributed by the proposer (not stated explicitly). At least,
a proposal distribution must contain the proposal's text or something
close to it to be valid (CFJ 1089 as quoted in the annotation of 1770).
- I can't find any reference that governs the changes the rulekeepor
may or may not perform in formatting rules texts.

It seems to boil down to a common sense decision not backed explicitly
by any rules. I therefore return a judgement of TRUE just because the
statement does reflect common sense, and a requirement to keep
formatting absolutely untouched would create many formal issues and
questions with no positive effect on the game.

In particular, being too nitpicky about these things might raise doubts
about proposals made by players who quote their own protoproposals in
mails to Agora-business just stating "I hereby submit the proto quoted
below as a proposal" or something to that effect - one could start
arguing whether the line breaks, indents, quoting marks (">") etc
inserted by quoting are part of the proposal or not.


Judge Kolja's Evidence:

Rule 1339/6 (Power=3)
Precision in Rule Changes

      Exact precision is required in the specification of Rule
      Changes; any ambiguity or irregularity in the specification of a
      Rule Change causes it to be void and without effect.

      Variations in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of
      text in an existing Rule to be removed or replaced does not
      create an irregularity or ambiguity, for the purpose of this
      Rule.  Any other variation, however, does.

Rule 1483/9 (Power=1)
Definition of Proposals

      A Proposal is created when a Legislator who is not Mute
      publishes a body of text with the clear indication that it is
      intended to become a Proposal.  The collection of text becomes a
      Proposal and the entity delivering that text becomes the
      Proposer of that Proposal. This process is known as Proposing or
      submitting a Proposal.

      The delivery of text identical to another Proposal which was
      Proposed less than three weeks previous does not create a
      new Proposal unless accompanied by a clear and explicit
      indication that the intent was to Propose a duplicate Proposal.

      The publishing of the Proposal Pool never creates new

      All Players are Legislators.  A Player is Mute while e has more
      than 5 Blots.

[CFJ 762: Anything contained in a Proposal is part of that Proposal,
 unless the Rules or Game Custom specifically says otherwise.]

Rule 107/1 (Power=3)
Rule Changes Must Be Written Down

      Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise
      communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted,
      it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on.  For
      the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including
      mailing lists, are valid media.

Rule 1770/16 (Power=1)
Distributing Proposals

      (a) The Promotor is permitted to distribute a Distributable
          Proposal at any time.

      (b) During each Week, the Promotor is required to distribute
          every Proposal that was Distributable at the beginning of
          that Week, unless the Proposal has since ceased to be

      (c) If there were no Distributable Proposals at the beginning of
          the Week, then the Promotor is required publically to note
          this fact at some time during the Week.

      (d) Failure by the Promotor to either distribute Proposals as
          required in (b), or to make an announcement as required in
          (c), is the Class 1 Infraction of Promotor Tardiness, which
          any Player may report.

      (e) The Promotor shall include with the distribution of each
          Proposal the identity of its Proposing Entity, its Adoption
          Index, and an indication of the Proposal's Chamber. However,
          the failure of the Promotor to include any of these
          accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the
          distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect.

      (f) A Proposal is legally distributed only if it is accompanied
          by an explicit indication that it is being distributed. When
          a Proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal

      (g) The Promotor shall not distribute any Proposal which is not
          Distributable, and must abort any Proposal so distributed.
          If the Promotor aborts a Proposal which e knows was
          Distributable at the time it was distributed, e commits the
          Class 2 Crime of Illegal Abortion.

      (h) The Promotor aborts a Proposal by publishing an announcement
          to that effect, clearly identifying the Proposal which has
          been aborted.

      (i) The distribution of an Undistributable Proposal, when the
          Promotor knows that the Proposal is Undistributable, is the
          Class 2 Crime of Promotor Misrepresentation.  The
          distribution of a text purporting to be a Proposal, when the
          Promotor knows that the text is not a Proposal, is the Class
          5 Crime of Promotor Fraud.

[In upholding the Judgement of CFJ 1089, the Board of Appeals held
 that in order for a Proposal to have been legally distributed, it is
 necessary (although perhaps not sufficient) that some text with
 demonstrably the same effects as the Proposal have been distributed.]

Some old discussions on similar themes dug up by root:

CFJ 1218:

Some notable posts from the discussion surrounding CFJ 1218: (informative)