Index ← 2944 CFJ 2945 2946 → text
==============================  CFJ 2945  ==============================

    Removing a decision's adoption index does not count as "changing" it
    for the purpose of Rule 106, and thus cannot be done except by
    taking precedence over Rule 106.


Caller:                                 Murphy
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Yally

Judge:                                  Roujo

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Murphy:                       22 Dec 2010 06:58:31 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      10 Jan 2011 01:03:03 GMT
Yally recused:                          14 Jan 2011 19:28:30 GMT
Assigned to Roujo:                      04 Feb 2011 22:13:15 GMT
Roujo recused:                          05 Feb 2011 03:23:53 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         27 Feb 2011 17:31:25 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.:                     28 Feb 2011 05:18:49 GMT


Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

If removing the adoption index does not count as
"changing" it, I don't see how Rule 106 would block it.  The only
other relevant text is:

      The adoption index of this decision is set to the adoption index
      of the proposal at the initiation of the decision.

which clearly does not keep any authority over the AI after the
initiation of the decision.


Judge G.'s Arguments:

If an Adoption Index is removed, all kinds of odd things happen.  For
example, by R2196, it would no longer have any available options.
It's not clear it's possible to do this, and the circumstances under
which it might happen are sufficiently removed from the current ruleset
such that it's tempting to say UNDETERMINED or IRRELEVANT.  However,
semantically, it's most reasonable to state that setting an adoption index
to null/no adoption index is in fact a change; and more generally it's
worth stating as a precedent that removing a property from an entity does
in fact count as a "change" of the property for that entity (it might
be possible to make a vague case for this under the last paragraph of
R1586, but it's tenuous so this is just a judgement call on my part,
where the rules are silent).  FALSE.