Index ← 943 CFJ 944 971 → text
From Fri Sep 19 05:41 EDT 1997
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id FAA26181 for; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 05:41:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom-@localhost)
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA14188
	for agora-official-list; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:27:17 +1000
Received: from ( [])
	by (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA14182
	for; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 19:26:51 +1000
Received: by (8.7.1/1.45)
    id LAA03906; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:29:40 +0200 (MET DST)
From: (Andre Engels)
Subject: OFF: CFJ 944 Assignment: Chuck
To: (nomic-official list)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 11:29:39 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 3089

                               CFJ 944

For proposals distributed during the infection of R693, the ten days
immediately following the distribution of each such proposal will be designated
its Voting Period immediately upon the disinfection of R693.


Judge:       Chuck


Eligible:    Andre, Blob, Calabresi, ChrisM, Chuck, Elde, 
	     elJefe, General Chaos, Harlequin, Kolja A., Michael, 
             Morendil, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Vir, Vlad, Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:      Crito
On request:  Vanyel
On hold:     Swann


  Called by Crito, 18 Sep 1997 14:48:11 -0400
  Assigned to Chuck, as of this message


(Caller's) Arguments (slighted edited):

See my argument above concerning retroactive rule effects.  Another
example may help (which is why I worded the CFJ as I did).  The disinfection of
R693 can be seen as assigning an historical significance to the ten days
following the distribution of each of these proposals.  It is like passing a
rule now which says, "September 1, 1997 through September 7, 1997 shall be
known as 'The Week of the Cumberbuns'".  This would retroactively give a
significance to those days, an effect which, I contend, is not prohibited by

'my argument above' is pointing to the following text (this line is
an insertion by the CotC):

Steve wrote:

>>Scott wrote:

>>>DavidOnce the Rule is disinfected, then I assume it establishes the
>>>DavidVoting Period to be 10 days from the distribution.  Depending
>>>Davidon when it was distributed, that would make the Voting period
>>>Davideither very short, or already ended.

>>>I believe this is in error.  To apply the standard of Rule 693/3 to
>>>Proposals made prior to its disinfection strikes me as a prohibited
>>>retroactive effect.  It is my opinion that all Proposals distributed
>>>during Rule 693's infection are forever deprived of a Voting Period,
>>>short of adopting a measure which specifically grants those Proposals
>>>an exceptional Voting Period.

>>In this case the Rule change is not being applied retroactively.  The Rule
>>change takes place at the moment of disinfection, but then the enforcement of
>>the changed Rule has retroactive effects, but these effects do not include
>>any document ratifications or rule changes.  IMO, this kind of retroactive
>>effect is not prohibited by the Rules.

>I find to my surprise that this argument is pretty good! Nothing in
>the Rules generally prohibits Rules from acting in the past; only
>Rule Changes cannot take effect in the past. But as Crito says, the
>Rule Change is not retroactive, only the application of the
>disinfected Rule is.

>Crito, I think you should seek to give this position a Judicial stamp
>of approval.