On Sat, 22 Jun 2013, Fool wrote: > I call for judgement on the validity of proposal 322. See rule 105. 322 > contains a conditional: > > 322 (Walker): > > - If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to > > read ...
Judgement: First, a conditional Rule change is not a proper rule change, so is not, as a whole, a proposal for a rule change. Second, in the text in which Walker allegedly submitted the text, it was a bullet in a long list that read as follows: - If the Rule initially numbered 106 is mutable, amend Rule 210 to read [...] I take this to mean that the rule change was submitted iff R106 was mutable at the time of this submission (I'm *specifically* allowing reasonable conditional specifying of actions in general, as it isn't forbidden). According to the Ruleset, R106 was not mutable, so this change wasn't submitted. Finally, the CFJ statement submitted was "on the validity of proposal 322". This is not particularly prone to an answer (it's a malformed statement, really) so I'm not sure how to answer it. Trivially, for this malformed statement I can see about equal arguments for TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED, so hopefully this is a minor point and the arguments about 322 itself above will let us blitz on. My personal interpretation is that the statement be read as asking "Is this a CFJ on the validity of proposal 322?" Of course it's not, it's a CFJ asking if it's a CFJ on the validity of proposal 322. FALSE. -Goethe.
