Index ← 2770 CFJ 2771 2772 → text
==============================  CFJ 2771  ==============================

    When a proposal to create a new rule takes effect, two new rules are


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  scshunt
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by omd:                          28 Feb 2010 17:32:58 GMT
Assigned to scshunt:                    06 Mar 2010 16:41:10 GMT
Judged FALSE by scshunt:                21 Mar 2010 19:55:20 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 106 specifies that when a proposal to create a rule
takes effect, such a rule is created; however, the proposal is still
an instrument in its own right and arguably goes ahead and creates
another copy of the rule.


Caller's Evidence:

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Sean Hunt  wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 09:59 AM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>> Detail:
>> ===================  CFJ 2766 (Interest Index = 0)  ====================
>>     Proposal 6632 successfully amended Rule 2282.
>> ========================================================================
> TRUE; as ais523 pointed out, Rule 106 applies the changes to the game state,
> meaning that it has sufficient power.


Judge scshunt's Arguments:

The issue at hand in CFJ 2771 is whether or not Rule 106 defined what a
proposal taking effect was or instead provided an additional action that
occurred when a proposal took effect.

Rule 106 itself is unclear in this manner; either interpretation could
be valid. The only other Rule to provide any guidance is Rule 105,
defining Rule Changes, which doesn't provide a whole lot. Therefore, I
will apply the criterion in Rule 217.

In order to find a judgment, I must consider game custom, common sense,
past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.
Prior to the Rule 106's 24th amendment, the definition of a proposal
taking effect was implicit - the actions described in its text were
performed by the proposal. This seems consistent with all of the
criteria described in Rule 217. The unclear text was intended to provide
a loophole by which a proposal could affect rules greater than its
power, not to cause a proposal to be executed twice. There is no other
basis in Agora, in nomics, or in law for a proposal to take effect
twice, unless there is clear text in a rule saying so.