On Wed, 11 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote: > I call for judgement on the statement "Rule 2211 is a proposal." > > Arguments: the precedent of the famous CFJ 1656 implies that rule 2211 > is a proposal (it states that anything matching the definition of the > first paragraph of rule 106 is a proposal, and rule 2211 is "making > other explicit changes to the gamestate" by platonically flipping castes > to Alpha every month). I'm wondering if that precedent ought to be > overturned; for one thing, it implies that proposals are trivially > capable of being amended, otherwise rule 2211 couldn't be amended, and > yet it has been in the past.
Particularly troubling is [quoting CFJ 1656]: Judge Eris's ruling in CFJ 1586 establishes the precedent that submission is not the only means for the creation of a proposal. Therefore, I find that the first paragraph of Rule 106 constitutes the complete definition of a proposal, and so proposal 4963 is in fact a proposal. thus relying wholly on a judgement (and a shaky one at that) about the act of creation (and what constitutes an act of creation) to infer that no act of creation is necessary for proposals to exist (when "submitting" is, in fact, and was at the time, confounded with "becoming" and thus with creation in R106). (R1586 dealt with how to deal with "copies" of proposals that has previously been created by submission). -Goethe
