Kate wrote:
ais523 wrote:
CFJ: If proposal 9336 is enacted at a time when there are two rules it
could repeal that each contain "Janet" or "ais523" in their body,
neither of them are repealed.
This is CFJ 4147. I assign it to Murphy.
Original CFJ and caller's arguments:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2026-April/055482.html
I interpret this clause from Rule 105 (Rule Changes):
if the change being
specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
on its face.
as allowing such repeals if the order of repeal makes no substantive
difference (and if they are otherwise unproblematic), but disallowing
them if it would make a substantive difference. For instance, for these
two rules:
Rule 9001A
Janet CAN do the thing by announcement. A proposal attempting to
repeal both this rule and Rule 9002A without specifying an order
is interpreted as repealing this one first.
Rule 9002A
ais523 CAN do the thing by announcement.
the order of Proposal 9336 repeals would be unambiguous, so the
statement would be true; but for these two rules:
Rule 9001B
If this rule is in effect and Rule 9002B is repealed, then Janet
wins and then this rule is repealed.
Rule 9002B
If this rule is in effect and Rule 9002A is repealed, then ais523
wins and then this rule is repealed.
the order of Proposal 9336 repeals would be substantively ambiguous, so
the statement would be false.
I judge DISMISS.
--
[ANSC H:GE]
