Oh sorry! I object to my own intent (obviously, this does nothing). On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Corona <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>
-- >From V.J. Rada
