Index ← 3423 CFJ 3424 3425 → text
==============================  CFJ 3424  ==============================

    There is ambiguity in a rule change specification of the form
    "Create the following Rule, AI=2, Moving Goalposts { text text text
    }".

========================================================================

Caller:     omd

Judge:      Henri
Judgement:  FALSE

========================================================================

Called by omd:                                      14 Jul 2014 16:03:25
Assigned to Henri:                                  25 Jul 2014 17:18:56
Judged FALSE by Henri:                              29 Jul 2014

========================================================================


Exhibit by omd:

Even though it fails to specify a power, it also clearly meant to
specify it as 2.  In non-rule change cases, differences between what
is said (as long as it's completely impossible - and in this case,
setting the AI of a rule is impossible even for a proposal, because
it's not defined) and what is meant (as long as it's completely clear)
are sometimes resolved in favor of the latter, which is why I called
it ambiguous.  (Then again, regular PF actions are supposed to be
"unambiguous and clear", but I think historically we've treated rule
changes more strictly, and the wording "*any* ambiguity" supports
this.)

========================================================================


Exhibit by omd:

Evidence:
      Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
      change to be void and without effect.  An inconsequential
      variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not
      constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any
      other variation does.
and:
      Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
      announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously
      and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
      it.

========================================================================


Exhibit by G.:

For determining power in particular, R105(a) explicitly and directly
clarifies the ambiguity (by setting power to 1 in the absence of
specification), "before" the overall ambiguity of the effect should
be assessed:
       (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum
           of the power specified by the enacting instrument,
           defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not
           specify or if it specifies a power less than one, and the
           maximum power permitted by other rules.
If R105(a) didn't have this explicit setting of Power, then I'd agree
with the Caller.

========================================================================

Judge's Arguments:

There is no ambiguity in the fact that Proposal 7679 (Moving Goalposts)
did not specify a power. By rule 105, the power of the rule, by default,
is 1. Whether or not the specification of an Adoption Index of 2 for the
rule was intended to be a specification of Power is irrelevent. What was
intended by the proposer may be interpretted as an attempt to set the
power, but what the proposer did was not that. Therefore, there is no
ambiguity.

The verdict is in. After much consideration, it has been decided that
CFJ 3424 is FALSE.

========================================================================