======================================================================
                               CFJ 882

"Proposal 2737 failed."

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

Judge:       Michael

Judgement:   TRUE

Eligible:    Andre, Coren, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, Murphy,
             Oerjan, Steve, Vanyel

Not eligible:
Caller:      Morendil
Barred:      Chuck, Swann, Zefram
On hold:     -

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

History:
  Called by Morendil, Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:34:50 +0100
  Assigned to Michael, Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:24:06 +0000
  Judged TRUE by Michael, Tue Nov 19 12:01:04 GMT 1996
  Published, Tue, 19 Nov 1996 12:03:00 +0000

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

Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

The caller has put his case well, and I seek in my reasoning here to
merely make it even more explicit.  The proposal in question contained
the following provision:

  Let the following Rule be created, with an MI=1 if the Voting
  Index of this Proposal is less than 2, with an MI=2 otherwise;

  (Title: The Frankenstein Generator)
  [...]

Now, the Voting Index on this proposal was precisely 2, so that this
provision clearly calls for the creation of a rule with an MI=2.
(This is allowed by 1339/4, and the conditional nature of the
specification is not prohibited there.)  So, Proposal 2737 had an
Adoption Index of (at least) 2, as one of its constituent parts had an
Adoption Index of two.  In order for it to pass, it must therefore
gain a Voting Index of *greater* than two.  As we have already
remarked, this did not occur, so the Proposal must have failed.

======================================================================
Evidence:

From the Assessor's Report
(Subject: OFF: Assessor's Report: 2734-2744
 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:37:07 +0100
 Message-Id: <199611072037.VAA29283@logatome.micronet.fr>)

               2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2  2
               7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7  7
               3  3  3  3  3  3  4  4  4  4  4
               4  5  6  7  8  9  0  1  2  3  4

Andre          A  -  F  A  F  F  F  -  A  F  F
Michael        -  F  F  F  F  -  F  F  F  F  A
Morendil       -  F  A  F  F  -  F  F  F  A  A
Oerjan         F  F  F  F  -  F  F  F  F  F  -
Scott          A  F  -  A  A  F  -  A  A
Steve          A  F  F  F  F  -  F  F  F  F  F
Swann          A  F  A 2F  F  F  F  - 3F  A  -
Zefram         F  F  F  A  F  F  F  F  F  F  A

F-A           -2 +7 +3 +3 +5 +5 +7 +4 +4 +3 -1

FOR            2  7  5  6  6  5  7  5  6  5  2
AGAINST        4  0  2  3  1  0  0  1  2  2  3
ABSTAIN        2  1  1  0  1  3  1  2  0  0  2

                       [^ note this column]

and further in the same report:

Let the following Rule be created, with an MI=1 if the Voting
Index of this Proposal is less than 2, with an MI=2 otherwise;

(Title: The Frankenstein Generator)

     This Rule shall be known as the Frankenstein Generator, and can
be ...

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

The following is my take on the problem of determining the AIs of
Proposals containing "conditional Rule Changes".

Proposal 2737 contains the following provision :

 Let the following Rule be created, with an MI=1 if the Voting
 Index of this Proposal is less than 2, with an MI=2 otherwise;

   <text omitted>

Proposal 2741 contains the following provision :

 Be it further resolved that if this Proposal attained a Voting Index
 greater than 3, Rule 1339 ("Rule Changes") shall be amended by
 deleting the paragraph reading

   <text omitted>

Except for the above provisions, the Adoption Index of either Proposal
would have been 1. It is therefore necessary to examine these
provisions and no other to determine the Aodption Indices of these
Proposals.

The Rules specify that Proposals may contain Rule Changes. It is
therefore natural to assume that "a Rule Change", in the context of a
Proposal, means "a provision that specifies some change to the
Ruleset". This isn't just me beig pedantic; by that I mean that either
of the above two provisions is exactly one Rule Change.

I also want to mention Rule 116, which as you'll recall says that in
the context of changing the Rules, anything which is not permitted is
prohibited.

This gives an easy resolution of the dilemma in the case of Proposal
2741 : the above provision is _not_ a Rule Change. Its effects include
possibly amending a Rule, and possibly not amending it; I therefore
believe it is not one of the Rule Changes listed in Rule 105.

Therefore, in my opinion, the AI of Proposal 2741 was 1, but the above
provision had no effect. I stand by my denial of Zefram's COE
regarding this matter.

The case of Proposal 2737 isn't so easy. The above provision _is_ a
Rule change, precisely a Creation. The Voting Index was determined at
the End of the Voting Period on that Proposal to be exactly 2.

Therefore, if this Rule Change specifies an MI at all, that MI was
2.And in the words of Rule 1322, this Rule Change may not take effect
unless its Power, i.e.  its Adoption Index, is not less than 2. Thus,
the Adoption Index of this Proposal was 2 by 594, and the Proposal
failed.

The alternative is the interpretation that the Proposal did _not_
specify an MI, which would in a straightforward manner result in an AI
of 1, with the above provision creating an MI=1 Rule.

In defense of that interpretation, I can only point out that during
the whole of the Voting Period, the Proposal did _not_ have a Voting
Index and therefore at that time did not specify an MI for the new
Rule. Other Players might have no difficulty in imagining that the
same text may specify a number when it had previously failed to do so
for more than ten days, but I am not of that mettle. :)

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