NttPF.
On 11/13/2017 5:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017 at 16:43 Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
- On various occasions, rulekeepors combined multiple changes made by a
single proposal into one change in the history. Rule 1681 is clear that
each Rule Change must be recorded separately. While I would like to
correct
all this data, doing it for all cases where a proposal amended a rule
multiple times is infeasible. That said, on a number of occasions, the
history indicated that a single proposal changed a rule's power and
amended
it, or retitled it and amended it.
This rung a bell - there's a series of linked CFJs I ended up judging,
all of CFJs 1638-1645, that exhaustively covered things like within a
Proposal, two separate phrases: "Amend Rule N by X. Amend Rule N by Y."
are two rule changes, while "Amend Rule N by X and by Y" is one rule
change. Probably far more detail then we can ever reconstruct...
Yes. I've also noticed a few cases where proposals that I looked at said to
"amend a rule by a) do X, b) do Y, c) change its title to Z". So actually,
I'll CFJ that:
AP-CFJ: "If a proposal specifies an amendment to a rule consisting of
multiple parts, one of which is a title change, then the entire amendment
fails."
Arguments: Rule 105 is clear that amendments and title changes are
different kinds of rule changes. Moreover, rule changes must also occur
sequentially; thus it is impossible to simultaneously amend and retitle a
rule. Consequently, I think that a proposal that attempts to specify such
an amendment fails to do anything, by virtue of the "any ambiguity...
causes that change to be void" clause.
Shiny-CFJ: "If a proposal specifies to "amend" a rule by changing its title
(and no other change), it succeeds in retitling the rule."
Arguments: Per Rule 105, amendments and title changes are different. If the
intent of the rule is clearly a retitling, does the use of the word "amend"
introduce enough ambiguity to cause the rule change to fail? I suspect the
answer is no; I don't think Rule 105 requires precise technical language
when the intent is perfectly clear.
The only recent example I saw was, if I recall correctly, the amendment to
Rule 1023 in Proposal 7924. But that had a separate clause claiming they
are severable, so I shiny-CFJ: "Proposal 7924 succeeded in amending Rule
1023".
Arguments: The proposal claims that the portions of the amendment it made
to rule 1023 are severable, however, it's not entirely clear to me whether
that means that the title change is severable. Can it be severed, and the
rest of the amendment succeed, on the basis that an amendment cannot change
the title of a rule? Or could it be interpreted as severing the non-title
amendments and having only the title change succeed? Or does the entire
thing fail because both of these are reasonable interpretations, and this
constitutes sufficient ambiguity for Rule 105's purposes?
Evidence: the relevant section of the proposal in question:
Amend Rule 1023, "Common Definitions", by (please note that these actions
are severable):
* removing the third item of the top level list;
* renumbering appropriately; and
* changing its title to "Agoran Time"
I bar Aris from all these cases and request linked assignment.
