============================== CFJ 1587 ==============================
If, as part of eir duties with respect to the Speaker's Veto, the
Assessor publishes a copy of a vetoed proposal with clear indication
that it become a proposal, then the Assessor is the Proposer of that
Called by G.: 05 Apr 2006 13:50:55 GMT
Assigned to arkestra: 03 May 2006 02:33:46 GMT
arkestra recused: 17 May 2006 02:33:46 GMT
Assigned to Manu: 05 Jun 2006 08:53:48 GMT
Manu recused: 16 Jun 2006 21:24:38 GMT
Assigned to Sherlock: 18 Jun 2006 23:46:43 GMT
Sherlock recused: 02 Jul 2006 23:46:43 GMT
Assigned to Taral: 23 Jul 2006 06:45:21 GMT
Dismissed by Taral: 02 Aug 2006 23:33:31 GMT
Proposal 4855 was vetoed by the Speaker. By R2019, after a veto, the Assessor
"places a copy" of that proposal in the proposal pool.
This copy is not the same proposal as the original, which was voted on already
(and had to fail quorum in order to trigger this placement). While the
Proposal is a "copy", there are at least some properties that differ from the
original. It has a different number and is therefore a distinct entity (CFJ
1358). It is democratic, it has a different AI then when it was voted on. So
it may have a different proposer and still be a "copy" of the proposal.
By definintion in R1483 (why is that only power 1?), a proposal is made by
publication with clear indication that the publication become a proposal.
CFJ 1: The "new copy" was not published in the assessor's announcement that
claimed to add it to the pool. So the first argument is that the Assesor's
attempt to "place a copy" of the proposal did not create a proposal, because
no such document was published.
Later, a copy appeared in the proposal pool, and by happenstance the Promotor
is currently the assessor. However, at that time there was no clear
indication that the text should "become" a proposal (it was assumed to be one
already), so it may not have worked.
CFJ 2: While "Proposer" is mentioned in several places in the ruleset, it is
nowhere explicitly defined, but R1483 gives a strong indication that it is the
submitter of the proposal that is the proposer.
In any case, if a published submission is what creates the copy, it was
created by root and not OscarMeyr. It is tempting to read R2019 (the veto
mechanism) as overriding R1483 (proposal definitions) and keeping the original
proposer "intact", as R2019 is of higher power. But I am arguing that there is
no conflict, I am saying that, had root published it correctly as assessor, e
would have satisfied both Rules if it assumed that, since e was the one who
published the copy, e was the proposer.
Assessor's announcement of quorum failure due to veto, and attempt to place a
copy of the proposal:
First publication of the copy "in the pool":
Rule 2019/5 (Power=2)
The Speaker's Veto
The Speaker may veto an Ordinary Proposal in its voting period
by announcement. Whenever a proposal is vetoed, its quorum is
set to the current number of eligible voters on that proposal
plus one, other rules governing quorum notwithstanding.
As soon as possible after a vetoed proposal fails quorum, the
Assessor shall place a copy of that proposal to the Proposal
Pool. When e does so, that copy shall become distributable and
democratic, and its adoption index shall be increased by one.
The Speaker may Rubberstamp an Ordinary Proposal in its voting
period by announcement. Quorum for a rubberstamped ordinary
proposal is three, other rules governing quorum nonwithstanding.
Rule 1483/12 (Power=1)
Definition of Proposals
A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
other explicit changes to the gamestate.
A legislator submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear
indication that it is intended to become a proposal. As soon as
possible afterward, the Promotor shall add this proposal to the
Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may
modify its adoption index by announcement. The default adoption
index of a proposal is one.
All players are legislators.
Judge Taral's Arguments:
Based on my argument in CFJ 1586, the publication of a copy of the
vetoed proposal is not required in order to place a copy of the
proposal in the pool.