==============================  CFJ 2386  ==============================

    On or about Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:28:36 +0000, a rule was created or
    amended to contain the text "comex and ais523 were here".

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

Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Murphy:                       18 Feb 2009 23:44:44 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     21 Feb 2009 07:52:42 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble:                  25 Feb 2009 14:09:00 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

TRUE if and only if comex succeeded in changing the
adoption index and text of Proposal 6072, *and* getting the changed text
to take effect even though many players clearly intended their votes to
support a much different effect.

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

Caller's Evidence:

This is when ais523 deputised to resolve the
decision on Proposal 6072.

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

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

CFJ2376 established that the text of Proposal 6072 was changed to a
form that would insert the required language in R2238; the only
remaining issue is whether the Agoran Decision to adopt it was a
decision to adopt the proposal as it was distributed or in the form it
had when the decision was resolved.

R107(a) specifically uses the example "the adoption of proposal 4781"
as a matter to be decided.  It doesn't refer to the adoption of a
proposal with a specific text, but to the adoption of a proposal with
a specified ID.

While the rules offer no guidance specifically regarding the text of a
proposal, game custom in another area does give a bit of guidance.
When a proposal references a rule by number, changes made by the
proposal are taken to effect the rule in the form it had when the
decision to adopt the proposal is resolved, not the form it had when
the proposal was submitted.  When a proposal quotes a part of a rule
to replace with other text, and the original text ceases to be part of
the rule before the proposal takes effect, the proposal is deemed to
have failed rather than to change the rule to what it would be if it
was replaced with the old version of itself plus the changes made by
the proposal.

Analogously, the decision to adopt a proposal contains a reference to
the proposal by ID, and when the decision is resolved the reference is
followed and the current version of the proposal takes effect.  That
the decision to adopt it and the essential parameters of the proposal
itself aren't linked by anything more than this reference can be seen
in the explicit ability for Support Democracy to change an essential
parameter of a decision (whether it's Democratic or Ordinary) without
affecting the proposal itself, as well as the power of the Wielder of
Veto to affect the AI of a decision to adopt a proposal without
affecting the proposal itself.

 I judge CFJ 2386 TRUE.

Tangentially, the message resolving the decision to adopt P6072
contained a factual error, but not one that would cause it to fail.
In eir resolution, ais523 claimed that a VI >= 3 was required for the
proposal to pass.  It was not; the AI of the proposal itself was
increased to 3, but the AI of the decision to adopt it was never
increased.  R208 does not require an accurate statement of the VI
required for the proposal to pass, just an accurate tally of the
votes.

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