====================================================================== 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) ======================================================================