Index ← 2427 CFJ 2428 2429 → text
==============================  CFJ 2428  ==============================

    If a proposal is caused to take effect without explicitly being
    allowed to cause rule changes, it can cause rule changes

========================================================================

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by scshunt:                      22 Mar 2009 21:25:00 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         23 Mar 2009 19:24:29 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     25 Mar 2009 19:09:02 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

After some discussion in ##nomic, it isn't really
clear whether 105 actually prevents something from taking effect, or
whether it simply prevents the action caused by it taking effect.
Noticeably, there is nothing in the rules actually letting proposals
make rules changes; merely to cause them to take effect. This leads to
some interesting conundrums.

========================================================================

Judge G.'s Arguments:

By the precedent of CFJ 2427, "causing a proposal to take effect"
in the sense of R106/19 is the same as a Rule both (a) permitting the
proposal to perform actions, and (b) providing a mechanism for
performing the actions.

This is because it is meaningless to say that a proposal, as a causal
instrument, "takes effect" any more than it is correct to say that
"Goethe took effect by delivering this judgement".  Rather, you would
say "the proposal caused the provisions to take effect" just as you
would say "Goethe caused the judgement to take effect".  This is a
undesirable semantic inaccuracy introduced by the oddity of the R106/19
language construction pointed out in CFJ 2427.

Also, as an instrument "taking effect" is actually the sum of its
actions taking effect, it is semantically impossible for a proposal
to "take effect" when all of its provisions are impossible.  In other
words, by CFJ 2427, for a proposal to "take effect but perform no
actions" is the same as a proposal "not taking effect."  It is *not*
correct to say that the proposal "took effect but performed no/null
actions".

R105/3 (first paragraph) permits an instrument to make rule changes
actions ("CAN"), and R106/19 provides the mechanism (option is
selected by Agora, requiring process, announcement, etc, leads to
the proposal performing the actions (causing them to take effect).

If a particular type of regulated action is not permitted or forbidden,
it is IMPOSSIBLE to do it.  So if a rule change (regulated) is not an
explicitly permitted action for an instrument (the proposal) it CANNOT
happen.

========================================================================