On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 10:53 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 20, 2017 10:02 PM, "Alex Smith" <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 22:52 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> > On Jul 20, 2017, at 7:57 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scr >> > ibonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I pend this for the minimum allowable amount. >> >> As the proposal’s imminence had already been flipped to Pending by >> V.J Rada, I believe that this fails and will record that you paid >> nothing to do nothing unless someone feels strongly enough to open a >> CFJ. > > Does anyone know whether there's an existing CFJ on whether you can > flip a switch to its own current value or not? It seems like the sort > of thing that's almost certain to have come up at some point. > > Rule 2445 certainly allows you to pend a pending proposal, so the only > way this failed is if the whole concept of "pending a pending proposal" > is invalid due to the fact that nothing actually changes. > > -- > ais523 > > > I distinctly remember that switch question being a discussion, possibly a > CFJ. I don't remember the results, just that I was on the wrong end of them. > I will do some research in the morning when I'm less useless. > > > -grok
I found the citations. It looks like the switching question was CFJ 3529 was originally assigned to Sprocklem [1]. The debate was over a player attempting to register while still a player (omd in this case); the statement posed questions of if a switch could be flipped to the value it was already set to, and if that would have any effect in the case of Citizenship switches. However, it looks like that CFJ was not answered. Worse, CFJ code 3529 was re-used a few days later for a question of whether Cuddlebeam possessed a Platinum Ribbon [2]. That CFJ was assigned to Quazie, who submitted proto-judgment in a-d but never published a judgment in a-b [3]. Seems a bit easier to fix since there has been no response to CFJ 3529(1) and Quazie has not submitted a judgment on CFJ 3529(2) to a public forum, but it still likely requires attention. [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08088.html [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08101.html [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg36475.html -grok
