On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 12:42 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > CFJ: Rule 2386 has been repealed. > > Arguments: The above - but I don't think the (implicitly defined) > ratified document actually includes the text of the proposal that took > effect, even if the physical message in question did.
Gratuitous evidence: Rule 2034 states, "A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes self-ratifying claims that [stuff happened]". The most straightforward meaning of "to constitute" is "to be all of the parts of", but clearly this is not the intended meaning; the intended meaning seems to be more along the lines of "to give rise to, and determine the nature of". So when the Assessor's document gave rise to a claim that Proposal 7330 took effect, was the claim simply the statement "Proposal 7330 took effect", or did the claim also include the proposal's text, as the Assessor's document did? I guess the former seems to make more sense, ignoring the best interests of the game. —"So should we just pass the proposal again, or..." Machiavelli
