Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2771 =================== CFJ 2771 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== When a proposal to create a new rule takes effect, two new rules are created. ======================================================================== Caller: comex Judge: coppro Judgement: FALSE ======================================================================== History: Called by comex: 28 Feb 2010 17:32:58 GMT Assigned to coppro: 06 Mar 2010 16:41:10 GMT Judged FALSE by coppro: 21 Mar 2010 19:55:20 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: Rule 106 specifies that when a proposal to create a rule takes effect, such a rule is created; however, the proposal is still an instrument in its own right and arguably goes ahead and creates another copy of the rule. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 02/27/2010 09:59 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: >> >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2766 >> >> =================== CFJ 2766 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== >> >> Proposal 6632 successfully amended Rule 2282. >> >> ======================================================================== > > TRUE; as ais523 pointed out, Rule 106 applies the changes to the game state, > meaning that it has sufficient power. ======================================================================== Judge coppro's Arguments: The issue at hand in CFJ 2771 is whether or not Rule 106 defined what a proposal taking effect was or instead provided an additional action that occurred when a proposal took effect. Rule 106 itself is unclear in this manner; either interpretation could be valid. The only other Rule to provide any guidance is Rule 105, defining Rule Changes, which doesn't provide a whole lot. Therefore, I will apply the criterion in Rule 217. In order to find a judgment, I must consider game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. Prior to the Rule 106's 24th amendment, the definition of a proposal taking effect was implicit - the actions described in its text were performed by the proposal. This seems consistent with all of the criteria described in Rule 217. The unclear text was intended to provide a loophole by which a proposal could affect rules greater than its power, not to cause a proposal to be executed twice. There is no other basis in Agora, in nomics, or in law for a proposal to take effect twice, unless there is clear text in a rule saying so. ========================================================================