Index ← 3829 CFJ 3830 3831 → text
===============================  CFJ 3830  ===============================

      The entity once known as Rule 2601 is a rule.

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

Caller:                        Jason

Judge:                         Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                     FALSE

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

History:

Called by Jason:                                  12 Apr 2020 23:41:23
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:      18 Apr 2020 16:06:48
Judged FALSE by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  19 Apr 2020 11:02:26

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

Caller's Evidence:

Adoption of Proposal 8262, enacting Rule 2601:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
official/2019-November/013234.html

Short Logical Ruleset dated 14 Feb 2020, containing Rule 2601/0:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
official/2020-February/013436.html

Adoption of Proposal 8327, amending Rule 2601 (now with revision number
1):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
official/2020-February/013472.html

Purported Closing of the Eye by R. Lee:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
business/2020-March/042407.html

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Warrigal:

One of the universal principles of modifiable systems of rules is that 
once a rule (or portion of a rule) is removed from the system, that rule 
(or portion of a rule) is no longer effective.  Therefore, "Boo clauses" 
are not effective.

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

Judge Publius Scribonius Scholasticus's Arguments:

There are a few scenarios that could have occurred that we must consider,
each of which correspond to possible texts of the rule.

Scenario 1

   One week after this sentence is modified in any way, this rule
   is amended by inserting this sentence as the first paragraph of
   this rule.

   If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
   least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
   CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
   repeals itself.

In this scenario, an attempt to close the eye would be ineffective because
the first paragraph would be added as soon as one week had passed,
therefore no time would exist in which the second paragraph was the only
paragraph and a week had passes since the rule was last amended. If this
were the scenario, Rule 2601 would be a rule.

Scenario 2 and 3

   If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
   least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
   CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
   repeals itself.

In these scenarios, the first paragraph would be unable to reinsert itself,
and closing the eye would be effective. In Scenario 2, closing the eye
would cause the rule to repeal itself, but in scenario 3, this would not
cause the rule to repeal itself.

In order to determine which of these scenarios occurred, we need to look at
R105, "Rule Changes". First, we can eliminate scenario 1. While Rule 105
doesn't specifically lay out what occurs during amendment, we can assume
that the former text of the rule no longer exists because it is fully
replaced by the new text. As a result, the old text would not have
sufficient power to amend a rule, therefore Scenario 1 is not valid. Now,
looking between scenarios 2 and 3, we have to consider the ordering of
events and where the rule loses power under list item 2 in R105. I believe
that the process is as follows:

           Person closes the eye
                     |
                     |
                     V
      Rule causes the repeal to occur
                     |
                     |
                     V
Repeal occurs, setting rule's power to zero

Given this ordering, the rule still had power when the repeal was
initiated, so the repeal was effective. Therefore, Rule 2601 was repealed.
From this, I judge CFJ 3830 FALSE.

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