On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> The original judgement suggests that the pre-"substantial" version of
> Rule 101 implicitly blocked both Proposal 5086 (imposing the two-week
> limit on appeals, adopted 5F 0A 2P) and Proposal 5769 (which amended
> Rule 101 to include "substantial", adopted 9F 0A 3P). Proposals with
> unanimous approval can still be ineffective, e.g. due to insufficient
> power, but that's explicit and objective; under this interpretation,
> the blocking is implicit and subjective, which strongly suggests that
> it's worth examining alternative interpretations, e.g. implicitly
> accepting staleness as part of the definition of "right" via R754(3).
Proposal 5769, which changed
The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights. Be
it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation
of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's
defined rights. This rule takes precedence over any rule which
would allow restrictions of a person's rights.
to
WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must
balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,
BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or
binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's
rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and
legal amendment of this Rule. This rule takes precedence over
any rule which would allow or mandate restrictions of the rights
contained herein.
did not itself remove any rights, and proposals after that that did so
through the explicit amendment clause. But the old version of R101
might have blocked, say, P5090, which changed the right to invoke
judgement to its current form from:
iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a
judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or
judicial order binding em.
The change removed the (pointless) right of a person to invoke
judgement on an issue that is not a matter of controversy.
