====================================================================== CFJ 884 "The effects of Proposal 2741 included amending Rule 1339." ====================================================================== Judge: Oerjan Judgement: TRUE Eligible: Andre, Blob, Chuck, Coren, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel Not eligible: Caller: Zefram Barred: Morendil On hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Zefram, Sat, 9 Nov 1996 19:06:53 +0000 (GMT) Assigned to Oerjan, Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:04:31 +0000 Judged TRUE by Oerjan, Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:06:09 +0100 (MET) Judgement published, Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:35:36 +0000 ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE Reasons and arguments: Central to this CFJ is the question of what it means for a conditional Rule Change to take effect. There are two different interpretations: 1) A conditional Rule Change takes effect if the condition is satisfied, and the antecedent is applied. (Some actual effect is observed.) 2) A conditional Rule Change takes effect if either the condition is not satisfied (so that there are no requirements imposed at all) or the antecedent is applied. (The conditional statement as a whole is satisfied.) Under interpretation 1, the Rule Change referred to in the CFJ cannot possibly take effect unless the AI=3, so by 594 that is the AI of the Proposal. Under interpretation 2, more questions appear. Namely, (a) is the AI of a Proposal decided at the time of distribution, or (b) is it only decided after the end of the Voting Period? 2a implies that it is sufficient that _some_ Voting Result would allow the Rule Change to take effect. But with a Vote of 0 FOR, say, the condition is never satisfied and so the conditional statement is vacuously satisfied. Therefore, in this case AI=1. 2b implies that the Voting Result determines the AI: If the Voting Index is <= 3, the AI is 1, if the VI is >3, the AI is 3. This is obviously what the Proposer intended. However, I feel that interpretation (2) is contrary to a common sense interpretation of the word "effect". I therefore support interpretation 1, giving an AI of 3 and making the Judgement TRUE. Note that this, while supporting the Statement, destroys the application intended in the Proposal, as it would have an AI=3 even with a lower Voting Index. Greetings, Oerjan. ====================================================================== Evidence: On Thu, 7 Nov 1996, Laurent Bossavit wrote: > Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 21:37:07 +0100 > From: Laurent Bossavit > Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com > To: nomic-official@teleport.com > Subject: OFF: Assessor's Report: 2734-2744 > > Assessor's Report on Proposals 2734-2744: 7 Nov 1996 > > > ============================================================================ > Voting Periods for 2734-2744 commenced at: Sat, 26 Nov 1996 16:57:30 > Voting Periods for 2734-2744 concluded at: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 16:57:30 > > At the commencement of the Voting Periods for Proposals 2734-2744 > there were 15 Registered Players: 15 Active, 0 On Hold. Therefore > the quorum for these Proposals is 8 (Rule 879/3). > > > ============================================================================ > > Num. Proposer AI Title RESULT > > D 2734 Zefram 1 Rename the Powers FAILS 2-4 (2) > S 2735 favor 2 Repeal Rule 1640 PASSES 7-0 (1) > 2736 Oerjan 1 Expansion of the Limbo concept PASSES 5-2 (1) > 2737 Swann 1 The Frankenstein Monster v3.1 PASSES 6-3 (0) > 2738 Swann 1 Rule Attribution v3 PASSES 6-1 (1) > 2739 Swann 1 Fix the Distributor v2 PASSES 5-0 (3) > D 2740 Andre 1 More logic in Shogun-title PASSES 7-0 (1) > 2741 Zefram 1 Clean up the Logical Ruleset PASSES 5-1 (2) > 2742 Swann 1 A D.N.Hist for Swann PASSES 6-2 (0) > D 2743 Zefram 3 Strengthen 114 FAILS QUORUM > D 2744 Andre 1 More Acceptance of Silliness FAILS QUORUM > > > =========================================================================== > > 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 > > A.I. 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 > PASSES? N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N [snip] > ===================================================================== > Proposal 2741 by Zefram: > Clean up the Logical Ruleset [snip] > 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.} === 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) ======================================================================