On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, comex wrote: > which is, coincidentally, the same as the modification the proposal > would make if it were adopted; but the proposal was _not_ adopted and > did _not_ take effect. These changes were made by Rule 1551 directly.
I see your line of argument, it is not absurd in general, but I just don't agree. As a judge, I would look at R2034: > A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision > constitutes self-ratifying claims that > a) such a decision existed, OK. > b) it was resolved as indicated, and This contradicts R208, so it doesn't work. > c) (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a > proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect. Since R208 stopped this, then the last paragraph of R106 contradicts it taking effect. Now, the minimal gamestate change is exactly what is specified here and no more. This would include b and c, but they are prevented by other rules, so the minimal gamestate change doesn't happen. R2034 tries to ratify the actual adoption, and then defers the actions to the R106 process. If the adoption doesn't work, the actions don't work. To back this up, another point. Ratification explicitly acts on documents. R208 does not actually require the text of a proposal to be published in resolution, as long as the proposal is clearly referenced. If a decision resolution is published that just says "The decision on proposal 5000 is hereby resolved as followed: Adopted with ([tally])" it would work if it were accurate. So if it is inaccurate but ratifies, you're arguing that it ratifies a list of effects that aren't part of the document being ratified! The only (minimal) thing R2034 sets out to ratify is whether the proposal was adopted, and assuming that is ratified, the proposal then proceeds to have sundry effects such as rule changes as guided by R106. If that doesn't work, then the proposal doesn't have those sundry effects, and ratification doesn't "reach in" to make those sundry effects happen. At least, not as R2034 is currently written. -G.
