Slightly delayed initial thoughts:
The relevant bit of proposal 9136 reads (indentation added by me for
readability):
> 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.
> }
Unfortunately, due to a concurrent proposal, it misquotes the text it’s
replacing: it should be “timely fashion”, not “timely manner”. It’s being
argued that (a) this misquotation caused the replacement to fail, and (b)
because of this, the appended paragraph fails too, as part of a single
atomic rule change.
But I’m not sure about (a). Rule 105/25 reads, in part:
> Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
> change to be void and without effect. An inconsequential variation
> in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity
> for the purposes of this rule. Furthermore, if the change being
> specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
> specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
> on its face. This provision does not prevent the specification of
> undesirable changes; for instance, an amendment which adds a typo
> is not corrected to remove the typo.
There’s an argument that this is an “inconsequential variation”;
but even if it is not, I believe that the later provisions regarding
a unambiguous but technically incorrect specification of a rule change
fit the facts here very well. Thus, it seems clear to me that proposal
9136 had its full intended effect.
Thoughts?
Gaelan
> On Aug 13, 2024, at 12:08 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official
> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> I assign CFJ 4089 to Gaelan.
>
> CFJ 4089 was called by 4st and reads: "the appended paragraph exists in
> the new rule."
>
> Original CFJ and caller's arguments:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-July/053341.html
>
> Gratuitous arguments from Janet:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-July/053341.html
>
> Gratuitous arguments from Mischief:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-July/064267.html
>
> ~qenya
