======================================================================
                               CFJ 885

"The Adoption Index of Proposal 2741 was 3."

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

Judge:       Steve

Judgement:   TRUE

Eligible:    Blob, Chuck, Coren, elJefe, favor, Michael, Murphy,
             Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel

Not eligible:
Caller:      Zefram
Barred:      Morendil
On hold:     Andre
Defaulted:   KoJen

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

History:
  Called by Zefram, Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:06:53 +0000 (GMT)
  Assigned to KoJen, Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:06:09 +0000
  KoJen defaults, Tue, 26 Nov 1996 11:06:09 +0000
  Re-assigned to Steve, Sat, 30 Nov 1996 13:34:08 +0000
  Judged TRUE, Fri, 6 Dec 1996 13:50:51 +1100 (EST)
  Published, Fri, 6 Dec 1996 17:58:51 +0000

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

Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

The relevant part of Proposal 2741 (see the Evidence section for the
complete text) reads as follows:

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

Rule 594 defines the Adoption Index for Proposals. The relevant part
of that Rule reads:

      Unless another Rule states otherwise, the Adoption Index of a
      Proposal shall be the minimum Adoption Index which would allow
      all Rule Changes and Directives within the Proposal to take
      effect, or 1, whichever is greater.

The truth or falsity of the Statement therefore turns on the question
of whether the proposed amendment of R1339 contained in P2741 really
was a Rule Change or not. If it was a Rule Change, then the AI of
P2741 was indeed 3 as the Statement alleges, since that would be the
minimum AI the Proposal could have which would allow all the Rule
Changes in it to take effect. If, for some reason, however, the
proposed amendment to R1339 was not a Rule Change, then the other Rule
Changes in the Proposal could all have been effective if the Proposal
had an AI of only 1.

However, I do not find convincing reasons to think that the proposed
amendment to R1339 is not a Rule Change. True, it is a conditional
Rule Change, but we have seen many of those before. It is also true
that the nature of the condition imposed is an unusual one, in that it
is tied to the Voting Index of the Proposal itself. But in order for
me to rule that that this condition prevents the proposed amendment
from being a Rule Change, I should have to read the Proposal as making
the *existence* of the Rule Change conditional on the VI of the
Proposal, rather than just its effectiveness - and this I am not
prepared to do.

It is my ruling that if a Proposal imposes a condition upon the
adoption of some Rule Change, then that condition is to be read as
limiting the circumstances under which the Rule Change can be
effective. The condition should not be read as limiting the
circumstances under which the Rule Change can be said to exist.  The
Rule Change, conditional or not, is contained within the Proposal, and
its existence is therefore not in question. On the basis of this
principle, I judge the Statement TRUE.

Relevant Rules: 594

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

Evidence:
1. Proposal 2741 (complete text)
2. Rule 594/2

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal 2741 by Zefram:
Clean up the Logical Ruleset

###

Be it therefore resolved that Rule 1051 ("The Office of the
Rulekeepor") be amended to read

      There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor.  The Rulekeepor
      shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer
      Salary.

      The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules.  At
      least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Logical Ruleset
      to the Public Forum.

{Moved the mandate to use the Logical Ruleset here, where it belongs.}

Be it further resolved that Rule 1048 ("The Logical Ruleset") be
amended to read

      There is a format of the Ruleset known as the Logical Ruleset.
      In this format, each Rule is assigned to a Rule Category, and
      the Rules are grouped according to their Category.  Within a
      Category, the ordering of Rules is decided by the Rulekeepor.
      All existing Rule Categories must be listed, along with a brief
      description, even if no Rules are currently assigned to the
      Category.

      A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify an existing
      Category to which the new Rule will be assigned.  If it does
      not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the new Rule's Category.  When
      doing so, the Rulekeepor may create a new Rule Category and
      assign the Rule to this new Category.

      The Rulekeepor may remove an empty Rule Category as e sees fit.

      If the Rulekeepor creates or removes a Category, e must announce
      it in the Public Forum no later than the first subsequent
      publication of the Logical Ruleset.

{Most of the law concerning Categories is now here.  The Directives to
Foobar a Category still exist as separate Rules -- I have another
proto to remove them.}

Be it further resolved that Rule 1452 ("Rulekeepor Maintains
Categories") be repealed.

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

      Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the
      Category to which the New Rule will be assigned.  If the
      Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that
      Category.  If the Category specified does not exist, or no
      Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to
      an appropriate category of eir own choice.

{Subsumed into Rule 1048 ("The Logical Ruleset").

*v2.1* Added the messy conditional, so that the Proposal can have an
AI of 1 but still amend 1339 if it gets a sufficiently high VI.  The
Rules currently don't handle this sort of thing brilliantly, but it's
legal.  Also listed the full paragraph to be deleted, for additional
clarity.}

Be it further resolved that Rule 1485 ("Titles For Rules") be amended
to read

      All Rules have a Title, which is a single line of text
      containing not more than 60 characters.  The Title must be
      listed by the Rulekeepor along with the Rule.  However, the
      Title is not part of the Rule itself and has no effect on the
      meaning or application of the Rule, being merely a convenience
      for the Players.

      A Rule Change that Creates a new Rule may specify a Title for
      the new Rule.  If it does not, the Rulekeepor shall choose the
      new Rule's Title.

      To change the Title of an existing Rule:

      A Rule's Title may be changed by a Directive.  The Directive
      must unambiguously state the number of the Rule and the new
      Title.

{Removed a lot of now-redundant gunk.

*v2.1* Oops, we do still need the Directive to change a Rule's Title.}

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 594/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Proposals and Rule Changes

      A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes.  If a Proposal
      containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained
      in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in
      the Proposal.

      Unless another Rule states otherwise, the Adoption Index of a
      Proposal shall be the minimum Adoption Index which would allow
      all Rule Changes and Directives within the Proposal to take
      effect, or 1, whichever is greater.

      In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1.

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

(Caller's) Arguments: (none)

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