The Judge's Arguments are below the Caller's Arguments.
On 11/27/17, VJ Rada <[email protected]> wrote: > Imminence switches are power 1, the thing that states OPs shall always > be pending is power 1 but claims precedent over all rules to the > contrary. This judgement does not speak to that issue or indeed any > issue. I intend with 2 support to file a Motion to Reconsider > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Corona <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I judge CFJ 3608 as FALSE, and note that proposals not in the Proposal >> Pool cannot have an Imminence switch. (What a headache. Hopefully >> that's right.) >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >>> An Official Proposal is always pending, even after being retracted, >>> distributed or adopted. >>> Arguments: >>> >>> Rule 2445 (power 1) says "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an >>> Official >>> proposal is always pending." The first clause of the rule implies that >>> "pending" only applies to proposals in the Pool, but rule 2240 (power 3) >>> implies that later clauses in a rule take precedence. >>> >>> Retraction and distribution both remove a proposal from the Proposal >>> Pool, and >>> are enabled by power 3 rules. Adoption shouldn't change anything. >>> >>> Rule 2240/1 (Power=3.0) >>> No Cretans Need Apply >>> >>> In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one >>> claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence; >>> otherwise, the later clause takes precedence. >>> >>> Rule 2445/10 (Power=1.0) >>> How to Pend a Proposal >>> >>> Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by >>> proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or >>> "not pending" (default). >>> >>> Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" >>> by announcement by: >>> >>> a) spending 1 Action Point, OR >>> >>> b) spending the current Pend Cost in shinies. >>> >>> An Official Proposal is a proposal designated as such by the >>> Rules; generally official proposals that are created as part of an >>> Officer's duties. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an >>> Official proposal is always pending. Rules to the contrary >>> notwithstanding, players CANNOT claim rewards for the adoption of >>> an Official proposal. >> >> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> Judge's Arguments: >> >> The called statement consists of three atomic assertions: >> 1) A retracted, distributed or adopted (official) proposal exists as a >> formal, rule-defined entity >> 2) Such a proposal can possess an Imminence switch. >> 3) That switch is set to pending. >> >> ----- >> >> 3) is trivial, as official proposals are always pending due to R2445 >> (quoted in caller's arguments) >> >> ----- >> >> 1) is quite obvious as well: >> >> Rule 106/39 (Power=3.0) >> Adopting Proposals >> [...] Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set to 0. >> >> Clearly, proposals exist as rule-defined entities even after being >> adopted. As no rule destroys proposals after retraction or >> distribution, it seems that retracted or distributed proposals >> continue to be proposals. >> >> As there is no rule mechanism for proposals ceasing to be official, >> official proposals continue to be official after >> retraction/distribution/adoption. >> >> ----- >> >> 2) is the most difficult to decide: >> >> R2162/10 (Power=3.0) >> Switches >> >> A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and >> specify the following: >> 1. The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. No >> other entity possesses an instance of that switch. >> [...] >> >> -No guidelines are provided as to what happens if a switch is implied >> to be possessed an entity that cannot possess such switches according >> to this rule. >> >> Rule 2445/10 (Power=1.0) >> How to Pend a Proposal >> >> Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals >> in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or "not pending" >> (default). >> [...] >> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an Official proposal is always >> pending. >> [...] >> >> -The secomd clause clearly implies that Official proposals always have >> an Imminence switch >> >> -Also note that (in addition to the caller's argument that the latter >> clause takes precedence due to R2240) only the latter clause claims >> precedence ("rules to the contrary notwithstanding") over the former >> clause. This is important because of R1030. >> >> Rule 2240/1 (Power=3.0) >> No Cretans Need Apply >> >> In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one claims >> precedence over the other, then it takes precedence;otherwise, the >> later clause takes precedence. >> >> Rule 1030/12 (Power=3.2) >> Precedence between Rules >> >> In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by >> performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in this >> rule, until the conflict is resolved. >> >> - In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with the >> higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Power; >> otherwise, >> >> - If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence >> relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence >> relations, then the determinations of the precedence-determining Rule >> shall be used to resolve the conflicts; otherwise, >> >> - If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself >> that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence >> over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall be >> used to resolve the conflict, unless they lead to contradictions >> between each other; otherwise, >> - If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule with >> the lowest ID number takes precedence; [...] >> >> R2162 is what causes the former clause of R2445 to conflict with the >> latter clause of R2445 over whether proposals not in the Proposal Pool >> can have the Imminence switch, and implies the former clause has >> precedence over the latter, as it defines the switch (If R2162 did not >> exist, the former clause of R2445 would not forbid that proposals not >> in the Proposal Pool possess Imminence switches/be pending). >> >> However, according to R2240, the latter clause of R2445 has precedence >> over the former. >> >> Thus R2160 and R2240 are in conflict over the precedence of R2445's >> clauses. >> >> R1030 has precedence over all of the aforementioned rules, and: >> >> >> -The third item on the list would give precedence to the latter clause >> of R2445 over the former, as it claims precedence over all rules >> ("rules to the contrary notwithstanding") ,meaning this CFJ would be >> TRUE; >> >> -However, the fourth item gives precedence to R2160 over R2240 >> (meaning the former clause of R2445 has precedence and this CFJ would >> be FALSE) >> >> -The list items are applied in the order they are written, until >> conflict is resolved, meaning that the third item would resolve the >> conflict, and the fourth would not be used; >> >> -However, the very first item gives precedence to R2160 and R2240 over >> both clauses of R2445; this does not resolve the conflict, as R2160 >> and R2240 are in conflict with each other over the precedence of >> R2445's clauses, but it implies that the third item is not able to >> resolve the conflict, as the precedence of the clauses of R2445 does >> not matter, as R2160 and R2240 take precedence over them. >> >> Therefore, the fourth item is what decides the overall conflict by >> giving R2160 precedence over R2240. >> >> Therefore the former clause of R2445 has precedence over the latter, >> and proposals not in the Proposal Pool cannot have an Imminence >> switch, and thus cannot be Pending. FALSE > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
