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
