Index ← 2854 CFJ 2855 2856 → text
==============================  CFJ 2855  ==============================

    A proposal adopted at AI-1 CAN create a leadership token in a
    person's possession without amending a rule.


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by G.:                           08 Sep 2010 21:45:32 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     10 Sep 2010 08:25:07 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  10 Sep 2010 09:07:12 GMT


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2140/0 (Power=3)
Power Controls Mutability

      No entity with power below the power of this rule can

      (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.

      (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than
          its own.

      (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with
          power greater than its own.  A "substantive" aspect of
          an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's


Caller's Arguments:

What can proposals accomplish by fiat (e.g. without amending rules)?
Here I've chosen a property (existence of a particular Leadership
Token) that is defined in the power 1.7 rule (R2293) but not
explicitly Secured.  It's clear that lower-powered rules can set up
explicit methods for token creation.  But what about proposals without
explicit rule backing, nor explicit rules denial?

By tradition, we allow phrases like "A Leadership Token is hereby
created in X's possession" to work if X is generally allowed to have
Leadership Tokens (e.g. the Rules don't make it impossible for the
gamestate that exists after the creation to exist).  But is this
really possible?  Or only at certain powers of proposal?

My argument is that this is governed by R2140(c).  A Proposal is an
instrument of power, and if it attempts to create a token, it is
"modifying a substantive aspect" of the rule defining the Tokens (my
argument implies that it is the token-defining Rule that matters, not any
rule that may govern an individual award, nor one that governs broader
definitions such as assets in general.  This would lead to a judgement
of FALSE/TRUE on the linked CFJs.

If my argument is correct, it means that every defined game quantity
is, in fact, Secured at the level of its primary defining Rule.  This
runs counter to our past traditions of what Proposals can do.


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

A substantive aspect of a rule pertains to /how/ a rule governs, not
/what/ a rule governs.  With that argument eliminated, a low-powered
proposal is just as capable as a low-powered rule (they're both
instruments and they're both effective) of changing holdings whose
existence is defined by a high-powered rule (if the high-powered rule
doesn't attempt to prevent it, then there's no conflict).