============================== CFJ 2429 ==============================
Proposal 6122 has taken effect.
Called by Murphy: 23 Mar 2009 02:12:44 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 23 Mar 2009 19:25:24 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 25 Mar 2009 13:38:25 GMT
Per Rule 2034(c) as amended by Proposal 6139, the
resolution of Proposals 6121 through 6139 constituted a self-ratifying
claim that Proposal 6122 has not been prevented from taking effect.
Gratuitous Arguments by scshunt:
The resolution of those proposals does constitute such a claim, however,
you cannot prevent something that would never have happened in the first
instance (Otherwise, I just prevented you from being attacked by a lion.
You're welcome). Since the only means by which a proposal can take
effect is by adoption, and it was not adopted, the proposal never would
have taken effect, and therefore cannot have been prevented.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
So this was an intentional loophole too? I'm getting
tired of them, much more fun to exploit the unintentional sort.
Rule 106 reads:
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not
otherwise take effect.
This clearly separates the increase of power and the actual taking of
effect. Even if the failed proposal took effect, its power was zero,
so it was not an instrument; therefore, Rule 105's
Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
as part of its effect,
does not apply, and
This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
become a rule or cease to be a rule.
does. The proposal took effect but was unauthorized to make any Rule
Changes so did nothing.
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
Actually, if we interpret "not prevented from taking effect" liberally
and require that the proposal wasn't a no-op, we're in an interesting
situation. The proposal requests Power 3, but if it had taken effect
at, say, Power=1, it would have successfully created a Power=1 rule
(and would not have been a no-op).
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
FWIW, I understand it was an accidental bug that happened to be noticed by
its author after submission, so call it unintentional with intential not-
pointing-it-out. I disagree by the way, of your recent scams/scam
attempts, I thought the cleverer ones were the ones with longer-term subtle
groundwork that no one picked up on (e.g. increasing the power of dependent
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
I made an honest mistake while drafting the proposal, started to correct
it (part of which is incorporated in the proposal below), then thought
"wait a minute, we might be able to get a scam out of this". (coppro's
counterargument was privately raised early on, though, so we focused on
the R2130 scam instead. I had originally intended to CoE all the
proposals in that batch except for P6122.)
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I judge CFJ 2429 FALSE. Just because something is not prevented from
taking effect does not necessarily mean that it has taken effect. (For
instance, Murphy is not prevented from deregistering; however, that does
not mean that e has deregistered!)
I think comex's argument (that a failed proposal is not an instrument,
therefore cannot make rule changes) is slightly less relevant here; even
if something didn't change a rule, it's possible for it to be ratified
that it did, and the rule will change (ratification is sufficiently
powerful). However, the wording in the rule in question specifically
doesn't ratify that a proposal took effect (although from adopted + not
prevented from taking effect, it is possible to conclude that either the
proposal took effect or something has gone badly wrong with R106).