On 4/15/26 00:58, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I CFJ: Rule 2651 contains the text "the ADoP SHALL publish a document".
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> Proposal 9254 (resolved at [0]) attempted to amend the penultimate
> paragraph of Rule 2651 but misquoted one part of the text it purported
> to change. In CFJs 4143 and 4144 (judged at [1]), Judge ais523 held that
> this amendment did in fact work. Because this was not reported in
> rulesets at the time (as I believed the change to have failed), another
> proposal, Proposal 9300, was submitted that quoted the text prior to the
> change; it was adopted at [2].
>
> Proposal 9300 significantly (and likely not "inconsequential[ly]")
> misquoted what we have now held to be the text of the rule it was trying
> to change. However, under Rule 105/25's test for ambiguity, it is quite
> possible that it was "clear to any reasonable player" what change was
> being specified (even when compared against the alternate text!).
>
> So, did the change work?
>
> }I temporarily deputize as Arbitor to assign the above-quoted case to Trigon; this is CFJ 4145. Full arguments and evidence available at https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2026-April/055422.html -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
