On 5/2/26 2:42 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 5/2/26 10:53, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
On 4/28/26 2:49 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote:
ais523 wrote:
CFJ: If proposal 9336 is enacted at a time when there are two rules it
could repeal that each contain "Janet" or "ais523" in their body,
neither of them are repealed.
This is CFJ 4147. I assign it to Murphy.
Original CFJ and caller's arguments:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2026-April/055482.html
~qenya
Semi-gratuitous argument: one possible place to draw the line would be
whether or not the order of repeals matters. For example, we can imagine a
proposal that would repeal three rules, but all six possible orderings lead
to the same game state (other than the trivial difference of the order of
repeals in that particular instant).
There doesn't seem to be any support for this in the text of the rule?
For something as fundamental of rule changes, it doesn't seem like a
good idea for a judge to just read something like that into the rules.
If it ends up being a R217 determination, it could be one possible outcome
--
Mischief
Collar, Collector, Executor, Speaker
Hat: steampunk hat
