==============================  CFJ 3030  ==============================

    When enacted, a proposal performs the changes stipulated in its
    text

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

Caller:                                 scshunt

Judge:                                  G.
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED

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

History:

Called by scshunt:                      03 Jun 2011 06:44:19 GMT
Assigned to G.:                         16 Jun 2011 01:37:11 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by G.:              16 Jun 2011 17:41:16 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 106 says
       A proposal is a fixed body of text which has been made into a
       proposal using a process specifically described in the Rules.
       When a person creates a proposal, e SHOULD ensure that it
       specifies one or more changes to the gamestate.  Except as
       prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN, as
       part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.  If the
       proposal cannot make some such changes, this does not preclude
       the other changes from taking place.

Nothing here actually directs the proposal to make such changes. Compare
to a prior version of the rule

       A proposal is a fixed body of text which has been made into a
       proposal using a process specifically described in the Rules.
       When creating proposals, the person who creates them SHOULD
       ensure that the proposal outlines changes to be made to Agora,
       such as enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other
       explicit changes to the gamestate. When a proposal that includes
       such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
       the gamestate. If the proposal cannot make some such changes,
       this does not preclude the other changes from taking place.

Note that the answer to this CFJ may well be TRUE by way of AIAN. By
preventing proposals from making rule changes, we would be left without
a way to ratify rule changes, I believe, and thus AIAN may have kicked
in and canceled Proposal 6823's rule change here.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

It was proposal 6968 (20-March-2011).

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Walker:

We still have this in R106 (power 3):

      If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
      then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
      from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
      its adoption index, and then it takes effect.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by omd:

I personally think the idea that it doesn't is ridiculous.  As other people
have mentioned, the ordinary language meaning is that the clauses of the
proposal, well, take effect... and there is no reason to suppose an alternate
definition.

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

Judge G.'s Arguments:

Starting first with a technicality:  "enacted" is not described for
proposals or decisions, only rule changes.  I'll assume this means
"adopted".  So, when a proposal is adopted:

 (1) Can the changes specified in its text happen at all?
 (2) If so, is it the proposal that performs them (as opposed to the
     rule authorizing the proposal)?
 (3) As the CFJ is written, does it always perform the changes in
     its text?

On Question (1), Rule 106/31 states:
      If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
      then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
      from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
      its adoption index, and then it takes effect.

"Take Effect"
1. To become operative, as under law or regulation: The curfew takes
   effect at midnight.
2. To produce the desired reaction.

Pretty straightforward.  In terms of a document, without explicit
redefinition, it means the specified effects (changes) happen.  A
perusal of past rulesets shows that various documents (orders, motions,
proposals, decisions, applications) have "taken effect" over the years
all with the same basic definition - the actions specified are applied/
occur.  Sometimes this was stated explicitly and sometimes it was
implicit, but no contradictions of the common definition were found.
So as written, "takes effect" means "these things happen".

In terms of question (2), it is reasonably clear from the above
quote in R106 (the powering of the proposal into an Instrument) that
it is the Proposal Instrument making the changes as permitted by R106,
and not R106 itself making the changes (which would mean all changes
happened at power 3).  It's the Proposal that has an effect, not the
empowering Rule.

This means the CAN in the first paragraph of R106 is unnecessary or
duplicative as an enabler, but rather functions wholly as a limiter,
as the "as probibited by other rules" clause ensures that the R106
"taking effect" defers to R2140, limiting the effects to those within
the Power of the Proposal.  This limitation details an explicit
severability ("does not preclude"), which means that for Question (3)
the proposal can be adopted and "take effect" but not perform any
changes outside its power.

So to begin and end on a technicality, I have to say UNDETERMINED on
this case, as an adopted proposal wouldn't perform changes above its
power.  In other words, everything works as we generally thought.

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