> On May 2, 2026, at 2:43 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> 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 neither of them are repealed.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. > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor >
Actually, upon further inspecting Rule 105, I think there might be textual support for Mischief's argument after all. Relevant excerpt: === A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. If a specification would ever be interpreted as causing multiple changes to happen at once, it is instead interpreted as attempting to cause them to occur separately, in the order they are listed in the specification. 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. === The first paragraph here states that "rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously", and states what happens if a proposal attempts to cause simultaneous rule changes - they occur separately, "in the order they are listed in the specification". It does not say what happens if no order is specified. The second paragraph says that any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. This is the only text in the rules that could be interpreted as an explicit statement that a lack of specified order causes a rule change to fail. However, it's ambiguous whether this text applies. It says "specification", which is the same language just used in the previous paragraph to talk about orders, but it also says "a rule change", singular, which could be interpreted as meaning that this paragraph only applies to ambiguity in individual rule changes, in which case the rules are silent or unclear on what happens in this situation and it goes to 217. If we do interpret this as applying to the order of rule changes, though, the second paragraph goes on to say that if "the change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player", then the change is NOT ambiguous, even if it might look like it at first. In this case, there is no disagreement about what Proposal 9336 is TRYING to do, it's obvious to everyone what the resulting game state would be if it succeeded. So I think that by Rule 105 there may be no ambiguity after all. - Galle
