On 6/26/20 8:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —
> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger
> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend
> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned:
Oooh, time for more semantics!
Rule 2626:
> Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as
> a patch), causing it to become pending.
My reading of this would be that any player CAN certify any proposal
(even one that is already pending), which also makes em cause the
proposal to become pending as a side effect. This would mean that the
pending can fail independently of the certification, and R2626 says "A
player SHALL NOT certify a proposal...", rather than prohibiting the
pending itself.
I made a similar argument in CFJ 3769 [0], but the language was slightly
different in that the rule in that case was written in the passive voice
("the gamestate is modified" vs R2626's "causing it to become pending").
--
Jason Cobb
