On 28 June 2013 10:47, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/06/2013 8:43 PM, Steven Gardner wrote: > >> On 28 June 2013 10:36, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com >> <mailto:fool1...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> In this case, the effect was your forfeiture (or requirement to >> forfeit). It was based on events that occurred prior, but the effect >> was not retroactive. >> >> >> I disagree. R345 describes a sequence of actions that lead to >> forfeiture. To avoid retroactive application, the entire sequence of >> events has to begin after R345 takes effect. >> >> >> Well, we've been doing that right from the start. With points rather than > forfeiture, but same idea. It was explicitly ruled that this did not > violate R108. (This might also have been the first CFJ in Agora itself.) > > The point of a ban on retroactive application of a rule, especially one which, like R345, criminalises a certain action, is to avoid a particularly galling kind of injustice: namely, that people do things which they rightly believe at the time are legal according to the rules at the time they perform them, but which are then retrospectively deemed to have been illegal and for which they are then punished. This is exactly the case here. Blob proposed 346 at a time when making proposals was without the risk of forfeiture. Imposing R345's punishment on em is a textbook example of the kind of thing that a ban on retroactive application of a rule is meant to disallow.
-- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
