On 7/13/24 17:28, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> Proposal 9136 reads, in part:
>
>> Amend Rule 2691 ("Sortition Procedure") by, as a single amendment,
>> replacing the pargraph
>> {
>> At the beginning of each quarter, the ADoP CAN by announcement, and
>> SHALL in a timely manner, initiate a sorition for each sortitioned
>> office if e has not already done so for that office.
>> }
>> with the following paragraphs:
>> {
>> A player CAN by announcement initiate a sortition for a vacant
>> sortitioned office for which a sortition is not ongoing. At the
>> beginning of each quarter, for each sortitioned office for which a
>> sortition is not ongoing, the ADoP CAN once by announcement, and SHALL
>> in a timely fashion, initiate a sortition.
>>
>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a sortition CANNOT be initiated
>> for an office for which a sortition is ongoing.
>> }
>> and by appending the following paragraph:
>> {
>> If a sortition is ever ongoing for a non-sortitioned office (or for an
>> office that no longer exists), that sortition immediately ends.
>> }
>
> This amendment fails: the text to replace of the first part is not found
> in the rule (having been changed by P9132). As this is a single
> amendment, the amendment fails in whole.
>[Sending in reply to the correct email now. *sigh*] Hmm, I've just become aware of this annotation: > CFJ 1643 (called 29 Apr 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single rule > amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but the > other is possible, the possible part is applied alone. Unfortunately the specific argument in the judgement isn't illuminating. If anybody wishes to challenge my finding, I request that they call a new CFJ. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
