Index ← 3813 CFJ 3814 3815 → text
===============================  CFJ 3814  ===============================

      Falsifian was awarded a Red Ribbon today.

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

Caller:                        twg
Barred:                        Falsifian

Judge:                         Alexis
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by twg:                                    14 Feb 2020 17:59:36
Assigned to Alexis:                               19 Feb 2020 15:22:22
Judged FALSE by Alexis:                           19 Feb 2020 20:24:09

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 2438 says:

      Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule
      that, immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its
      proposer earns a Red Ribbon.

i.e., if a proposal does not change a rule, it does not earn its author
a Red Ribbon, even if it has Power >= 3.

There is some uncertainty about whether Proposal 8308 changed a rule.
Some time ago (can't find the thread), Alexis asserted that it didn't
because it was too vague.

The Rulekeepor is probably the best person to rule on this (no pun
intended).


Caller's Evidence:

Falsifian wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 02:18, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> PROPOSAL 8308 (Imposing order on the order)
> ...
>> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> I award myself a Red ribbon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gratuitous Arguments by Falsifian

Sorry, I actually forgot what my proposal was about when I claimed the
ribbon. I just saw AI=3.0 and grabbed at it.

Ironically, I submitted the proposal to avoid anyone having to figure
out the following issue...

I designed my proposal not to make any changes unless Proposal 8291
didn't have the desired effect. Here's the relevant part of Proposal
8291:

> Amend Rule 2350, "Proposals", by adding the following to the list:
>
>   * A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon its
>     creation.

I was concerned it doesn't say where the new entry should go, so that
provision might not work. However, if that provision did work, I'm
fairly sure my proposal made no change, so I didn't get a Red ribbon.
Here's the text of my proposal:

> Title: Imposing order on the order
> AI: 3.0
> Text:
>
> If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
> item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
> creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
> item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
> unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
> list it is, put it at the end of the list.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Alexis's Arguments:

The crux of this issue is whether or not Proposal 8291 was ambiguous
in referring to "add"ing an item to a list. Both Wiktionary and
Merriam-Webster, however, clearly indicate that "add" can be
synonymous with "append", without providing any reasonable alternate
sense which would be applicable here. I thus find that, without any
other qualification as to where an item is to be inserted in a list,
to "add" an item means to do so at the end.

I do not find that this rises to the level of ambiguity, because while
"add to the beginning" may well mean something different (and itself
be unambiguous), simply because one could insert a prepositional
phrase does not necessarily add ambiguity when there is a
clearly-established meaning without it. Indeed, the Rulekeepor felt it
clear enough to add the text to the end of the rule without further
comment, before e went back and changed eir mind and submitted a fix
proposal.

Consequently, Proposal 8291 did indeed insert the text at the end of
the list, and so Proposal 8308 did not actually make any changes to
the text of the rules. Proposal 8308's text is clear that, if the
desired text was where it was supposed to be, it would not attempt to
amend Rule 2350. There is, accordingly, no need for the court to
decide if a null amendment would qualify for a Red Ribbon.

This case is FALSE.

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