On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sat, 2014-10-11 at 10:41 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Looking at that one, the only fail/success mechanism *is* by announcement, > > so that's the only basis for judging whether a judicial assignment > > succeeds. > > > > The requirement for the Arbitor to have further procedure to ensure > > fairness is a SHALL, not a CAN. Which means we treat failure to live > > up to the SHALL in a criminal sense, where context (intent, informal > > procedure to mitigate the effects of breaking the SHALL, impact of > > violation) can in fact be used. > > Ah right. So what you're focusing on is processes that actually are > defined in the rules, and what they're used for. > > What I'm interested in is hypothetical processes. If the rule said > something other than what it did, would the process be considered valid > under R105 for a rules change? I know you consider By Announcement > invalid, and suspect you'd consider With Notice to be fine. But what is > it about a process that makes it R105-noticeworthy? The fact that it > must give notice? The fact that it can give notice? The fact that it did > give notice, at any given time?
If a Rule actually said you could do a change With Notice, than we'd ask how much Notice was enough, and ask per instance if there was anything wrong with it. In fact, if Induction still existed, I would opine that By Announcement means you can also do it With Notice, and 4 Days Notice would work. But in that situation, the Rules would actually say (via induction) that you CAN make the change With Notice. Right now the rules don't say that. > Then, if you move the process out of the rule, what happens? Does the > fact that the rule not /require/ that a notice-giving process be used > mean that a notice-giving process can't be used? Let's say a Rule says you can change a Rule With Notice. Then you repeal the Rule that says With Notice. Aren't you repealing the process? Would you say "well it's gone from the ruleset, but we can still do it"? That just doesn't make sense to me! > I think we probably disagree on whether a process necessarily has to be > part of the ruleset or not. I think that processes exist independently > of the ruleset, and it's up to individual rules as to which processes > they want to enforce. You presumably think something can't be a process > unless it's encoded in the rules (in which case, the Arbitor judge > assignment process is a pure CAN by announcement, with no additional > restrictions)? I think that, in the *specific* case of the R105 clause, we SHOULD consider the process being adjudicated to mean the process actually invokable in the Rules (by announcement). I just don't see justification in the current ruleset for extending the interpretation to cover unwritten "rules" (when Induction is gone, and Rights are no more).
