Just a note: please vote for these proposals as if they were correct and I'll submit a fixed version later.
-scshunt On Jul 29, 2015 16:15, "tmanthe2nd ." <[email protected]> wrote: > I Call for Judgement on this statement. "Proposals 7773 and 7774 will have > no effect if passed" > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, tmanthe2nd . <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It was CFJ 1625. "Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both >> number and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, >> this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change." >> >> That doesn't refer to when the other rule doesn't exist. But, the rules >> say, "An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule >> does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other >> variation does." I think this would fall under "any other variation". >> >> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote: >>> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:55 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:43 AM, tmanthe2nd . <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >> Proposals 7773 and 7774 gives the wrong ID number for the rule it >>> amends. >>> > >> Rule 2455 does not exist. So, the proposals don't actually do >>> anything. >>> > > >>> > > So they do. Nice catch. >>> > >>> > Though if you ask me, the phrase 'Rule 2455 "How to Pend a Proposal"' >>> > is completely unambiguous. There's absolutely no reasonable doubt as >>> > to what the intended meaning of the phrase is, so the error >>> > constitutes "difference in spelling" which "does not create an >>> > ambiguity in meaning". >>> >>> A CFJ found differently IIRC, but I think in that case the mis-numbering >>> referred accidentally to a different existing rule. >>> >>> As Rulekeepor, I wholly disagree that this is a different in "spelling", >>> though it *may* still be clear enough depending what the precedent >>> says... >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
