On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> No, but it can enact the effects of the proposal _as if_ it were
>>> adopted. This is how I've always interpreted it.
>>
>> And that's the whole bloody thing I'm arguing against. If you can change
>> anything by saying "this doesn't conflict with Rule X, because we're
>> acting AS IF it didn't" then all Power is broken, all Security is broken,
>> and all Precedence is broken, because I can make a power-1 rule that says
>> "We are hereby playing AS IF all those other rules don't matter".
>
> Nope. If a proposal says {Enact a new Power-2 Rule}, normally the
> proposal (a Power-2 instrument) would create the rule; if it was
> ratified into "passing", the Power-3 ratification rule would create
> the new rule itself. Technically I should write "Enacted by Rule
> 1551" rather than "Enacted by Proposal X", but otherwise it works. On
> the other hand, if a Power-1 Rule tried to claim it acted "as if" the
> proposal passed, it would be a Power-1 Rule attempting to enact a
> Power-2 Rule, which is forbidden by Rule 105; thus it would fail.
I'm not wholly convinced that this gets around the blockage of "the
proposal not otherwise take effect" in R106 last paragraph, because
there's still an amount of sophistry in saying "AS IF it took effect"
is different than it actually taking effect... after all, you're
claiming it still has an effect of changing a rule!
But if you accept that, I can see that your logic works, PROVIDED
it's accepted that Proposal wasn't adopted (R208 prevents ratification
from doing that), none of the baggage (awards or whatever) that come
from proposals being adopted happen, none of the NON-RULE CHANGE
provisions of the proposal ("The value of X is hereby set to Y") work
(because those require the proposal itself to take effect for their
provisions to be implemented), and the Rule was created wholly by
R1551 making the rule change, as R105 allows.
(There's still a lot of potential sundry damage there from past non-
rule change provisions, but not rule change damage. And that sundy
damage can be/probably was dealt with by later reports ratifying the
changed values in, as that doesn't require the proposal process).
-G.
