============================== CFJ 3297 ==============================
Rule 2386 has been repealed.
Called by omd: 17 Feb 2013 05:42:06 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 11 Mar 2013 18:51:45 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523: 16 Mar 2013 19:28:39 GMT
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Tanner Swett wrote:
> The purported resolution of this decision constituted a self-ratifying
> claim that Proposal 7330 took effect, and, as of nearly twelve hours
> ago, this claim has remained continuously undoubted for one week.
> Therefore, the claim has ratified. Rule 1551 states that ratification
> "cannot [cause] a rule change unless the ratified document purports to
> include the text, title, and/or power of the rule being changed".
> Indeed, the ratified document mentioned Rule 2386 "Belligerence" by
> title, not by ID number (as it had not been assigned an ID number when
> the proposal was written), so this ratification was successful in
> repealing Rule 2386.
but I don't think the (implicitly defined)
ratified document actually includes the text of the proposal that took
effect, even if the physical message in question did.
Gratuitous Arguments by Machiavelli:
Rule 2034 states, "A public document purporting
to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes self-ratifying claims that
[stuff happened]". The most straightforward meaning of "to constitute"
is "to be all of the parts of", but clearly this is not the intended
meaning; the intended meaning seems to be more along the lines of "to
give rise to, and determine the nature of". So when the Assessor's
document gave rise to a claim that Proposal 7330 took effect, was the
claim simply the statement "Proposal 7330 took effect", or did the
claim also include the proposal's text, as the Assessor's document
I guess the former seems to make more sense, ignoring the best
interests of the game.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
Excerpt from rule 2034/6:
"A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes
self-ratifying claims that"
Rule 1551/15, paragraph 1:
"A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message."
The issue at issue in this case is what the relevant public document is,
in the case of a proposal resolution. Based on the plain definitions in
the rules, the only conclusion I can think of is that every part of a
public message that purports to resolve an Agoran decision is
self-ratifying. Due to the "(possibly all)", it seems reasonable that
"part" has a meaning similar to "consecutive sequence of characters that
makes sense on its own and obeys natural boundaries of the message",
rather than a meaning similar to "chapter".
As such, we can deduce that multiple documents self-ratified; the
portion of the message that did not include the text/title/power of the
rule (because it did not include the text of the proposal) did nothing
upon self-ratification, but the entire message (which is also a
document) repealed the rule upon self-ratification.
This implies that the rules are not broken in the way that was
anticipated when this case was called. I judge CFJ 3297 TRUE.