==============================  CFJ 2415  ==============================

    The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal that is not in the Proposal


Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by omd:                          15 Mar 2009 22:48:52 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     16 Mar 2009 21:04:03 GMT
Judged TRUE by ais523:                  23 Mar 2009 19:38:08 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

R1607 (The Promotor):
      The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal
      Pool at any time.

R2125 (Regulation Regulations):
      A regulated action is an action satisfying any of the following:
      d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
         certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action MAY NOT be
         performed except as allowed by the rules.

R106 (Adopting Proposals):
      A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a
      Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the
      clear intent of distributing it.  When a proposal is
      distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool.  The
      distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of
      whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere.  Removing
      a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an
      Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured.

The statements were found TRUE and FALSE, respectively, in CFJ 1656,
on which judgement we have been basing the 'created by the act of
distribution' theory.  However, the rules have changed significantly
since that judgement!  The text allowing any proposal to be
distributed is gone, replaced with the above language which seems to
restrict distributions to proposals in the Pool.  The language change
was made last December by Proposal 6001, but we have still treated
invalidly distributed proposals as effective: a quick search yields
that Proposal 6017 was distributed and resolved despite having been
retracted.  It failed anyway and we have self-ratification, but it
would be nice to resolve the issue.

In particular, for the second statement, either

  (a) 'distributing a proposal' is an action and the state of being in
      the Proposal Pool is a condition; FALSE, or
  (b) 'distributing a proposal in the Proposal Pool' is an action;

(CFJs 1546, 1656, 1669, and 1780 may be relevant to this case.)


Judge ais523's Arguments:

As for CFJ 2415, I judge it TRUE, but with a caveat. A proposal can be
distributed by the Promotor publishing it with the clear intent of
distributing it, no matter whether it's in the Proposal Pool at the time
or not. (Rule 106 doesn't care about the location at all, although the
proposal gets removed from the Pool if it's there at the time.) However,
in order to distribute a proposal, it must exist; and the only method of
creating a proposal places it in the Proposal Pool. Therefore, in order
to distribute a proposal that isn't in the pool, the proposal must
previously have been removed from the pool. So in other words, it's
possible for the Promotor to redistribute a proposal that has already
been distributed; however, doing so does not change its ID number. If a
new ID number is written next to the proposal name, it's therefore
either a different proposal (which must have been submitted, or the
attempt to distribute fails), or a lie.

I also notice that I've never seen the Promotor attempt to redistribute
an already-distributed proposal, and all purported distributions have
used new ID numbers, so cases of CFJ 2415 are probably FALSE in

Note that it's possible for the Promotor to create and distribute a
proposal in the same message; publishing a body of text with a clear
indication that it's intended to be a proposal causes it to become a
proposal, and attempting to distribute something is a clear intention
that it's intended to be a proposal. Therefore, if the Promotor attempts
to distribute a body of text not a proposal at the time, assigning a new
ID number to it, it goes into and immediately out of the proposal pool,
except that the Promotor is the author of the resulting proposal.

A rather interesting bug comes up at this point. Rule 106 states that
removing a proposal from the proposal pool initiates an Agoran Decision
to adopt it, full stop. Rule 107 states that an Agoran Decision is
initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid
notice that sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This seems
to be a clear contradiction (in the case that the notice is invalid or
nonexistent); rule 106 takes precedence in this case. (This is all
irrelevant to the CFJ, but possibly relevant to the intent behind it,
and rather interesting.)