==============================  CFJ 2294  ==============================

    Warrigal has a Red Ribbon.


Caller:                                 Wooble

Judge:                                  root

Judge:                                  Elysion
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Wooble:                       29 Nov 2008 18:47:02 GMT
Assigned to root:                       02 Dec 2008 07:40:52 GMT
root recused:                           10 Dec 2008 22:47:41 GMT
Assigned to Elysion:                    10 Dec 2008 23:57:43 GMT
Judged FALSE by Elysion:                13 Dec 2008 21:01:13 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

      (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least
           one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.

It's unclear to me whether up-mutating a rule with Power < 3 to Power
3 counts as changing a rule with Power >= 3.


Caller's Evidence:

On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Proposal 5983 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by Warrigal
> Stronger Depatation
> Set the power of Rule 2160 to 3.


Judge Elysion's Arguments:

Let us first dispense with the trivial case. The Tailor's Report [1], does not
show Warrigal having earned a Red Ribbon from any activity other than
(possibly) Proposal 5983. As this Judge is not aware of any other claims that
Warrigal earned a Red Ribbon, this case revolves around whether Proposal 5983
satisfies Rule 2199(+R).

Rule 2199/2 (Ribbons) sets out the criterion for gaining a Red Ribbon as

      (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least
           one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon.

Since Rule 2199/2 does not otherwise define "changes [to a] rule" this Judge
finds that language to be equivalent to a "rule change" under 105/3.

Proposal 5983 (AI=3) reads in its entirety [2]:

    Set the power of Rule 2160 to 3.

Rule 105/3 (Rule Changes) reads in part:

      (e) change the power of a rule.

      A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.

Prior to the adoption of Proposal 5983, Rule 2160 had Power=1. Thus, by
raising the Power of Rule 2160 from 1 to 3, Proposal 5863 did make a rule
change. However, 2199/2(+R) also requires the change to be to a rule "with
Power >= 3," which was not the case for Rule 2160 at the time of the change.
Thus, Proposal 5983 does not satisfy 2199/2(+R), rendering the statement
FALSE. (Note that since Rule 2160 is now Power=3, a Proposal to lower its
Power would qualify under 2199/2(+R) using this interpretation.)

This ruling interprets 2199/2(+R) as "interested proposal that changes at
least one (rule with Power >= 3)." An alternative interpretation could be
"interested proposal that changes (with Power >= 3) at least one rule."
However, the most natural reading of the language interprets "with Power >= 3"
as applying to the nearest antecedent that makes reasonable sense. Thus, the
interpretation adopted by this ruling is the most reasonable reading of the

[1] http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-Dece

[2] http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2008-Nove