=============================== CFJ 3720 ===============================
Whether or not a Proposal CAN make a Secured change is determined
by the power and precedence of R1688, as deferred to by R106.
Called by G.: 21 Feb 2019 18:10:39
Assigned to Trigon: 23 Feb 2019 14:58:16
Judged TRUE by Trigon: 24 Feb 2019 23:32:09
If R1688 were written as a definition: "Secured-N is defined as
meaning the secured thing CANNOT be changed by an instrument of
power < N", then when a Rule A contains "X is Secured-N", that Security
would have the precedence of Rule A when resolving rules conflicts, as
the CANNOT would be contained, via definition, in Rule A.
However, if R1688 was a direct prohibition "If a Rule states that
something is Secured-N, then that thing CANNOT be changed by an
instrument of power < N", then the CANNOT is a direct prohibition in
R1688 that is invoked by Rule A, and the functioning of Security would
have the precedence of R1688.
The current language, though, is confusing to me. It reads:
"A Rule that makes a change, action, or value secured (hereafter the
securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change or
This says that it's the Rule (Rule A) that "makes" it impossible.
This could be read as "the text contained in Rule A makes it
IMPOSSIBLE as per R1688" (putting the IMPOSSIBLE in R1688). It could
also be read as "Rule A is the one 'making' it impossible, therefore
what matters is the power of Rule A".
This is important for the relationship between Proposals and Security
as per R106. R106 reads in part: "Except as prohibited by other
rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as part of its
effect, apply the changes that it specifies."
Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power (R1030).
If it's R1688 that applies the CANNOT for security, then R106 defers
to R1688, and R1688 prevents secured changes from being made by
proposals of too-low power. So a TRUE judgement would imply "things
are working as intended." However, if the CANNOT is assumed to be in
Rule A, then the deference doesn't work, and R106 overrules Rule A
whenever Rule A is of a power<3, which means proposals CAN make
changes even if their power is "too low" for the level of security.
I think it would be pretty important to make sure that the actual
CANNOT prohibition is considered to be "part of" Rule 1688 for the
purposes of precedence, so I hope this is TRUE. But if not, a
legislative fix is needed.
I judge this CFJ TRUE based on the caller's arguments.