On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 2:26 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business <
[email protected]> wrote:
> CFJ, barring ais523: A rule reading "Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend
> itself by announcement." was created on or about Sat, 25 Apr 2026
> 13:13:08 -0400.
>
> I petition the Arbitor to not assign this case to Janet either.
>
>
> Caller's arguments:
>
> [tl;dr: ais523 and Janet's recent dictatorship scam may have failed
> because the past proposal was previously set to Power 0, so reviving
> it didn't actually make any rule changes.]
>
> On or about the date in question, Proposal 9328 (Revival) was adopted,
> creating a Power 2 rule with this text:
>
> For the purpose of this rule, a proposal or former proposal is an
> "adopted proposal" if any past referendum on that proposal or
> former proposal had an outcome oF ADOPTED.
>
> A player CAN revive an adopted proposal by paying a fee of 25
> Spendies. When a player does so, this rule performs the same rules
> changes that that adopted proposal would perform if it took effect
> right now.
>
> Then Janet attempted to use it to revive Proposal 6069, which originally
> created a Power 1 rule with this text:
>
> Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
>
> However, as noted by whats.a.throwaway on Discord: while the rule
> created by P9328 is generally able to perform rule changes up to the
> limit of its own Power, it only attempts to perform "the ... rules
> changes that that adopted proposal would perform if *it* took effect
> right now" (emphasis added), which depends on the current Power of the
> proposal being revived.
>
> Proposal 6069 was originally adopted on or about 2 Feb 2009. At that
> time, the relevant paragraph of Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) read:
>
> If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
> then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
> from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
> its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not
> otherwise take effect.
>
> which did not remove the proposal's power afterward. In Nov 2017, Rule
> 106 was amended by Proposal 7940 (High Power Cleanup) to include:
>
> Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one
> after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is
> instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own
> effect. Once a proposal finishes taking effect, its power is set
> to 0.
>
> but this did not clearly affect proposals that had already finished
> taking effect before that amendment. Then, on or about 11 Mar 2026, it
> was amended by Proposal 9302 (No Lingering Instruments) to include:
>
> Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one
> after another, rather than simultaneously, a proposal's effect is
> instantaneous. A proposal can neither delay nor extend its own
> effect. If, at any time, a proposal has finished taking effect,
> its power is set to 0.
Arguments for FALSE:
===
Rule 1688 (Power) states "All entities have Power zero except where
specifically allowed by the rules."
Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities) states
If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
with different attributes, then the second entity and its
attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
the new definitions.
Merriam-Webster defines "specifically" as follows: in a specific manner *: *in
a definite and exact way *: *with precision.
Worth noting that this is a dangerously restrictive definition. The rules
must clearly define all allowances for non-zero power if they are to have
any effect.
Proposals that have already been adopted have Power zero unless the rules
"specifically" allow it.
Let us consider a hypothetical:
What would happen if a proposal was enacted that "set the power of Agora to
1"? Do the rules "specifically allow" this to succeed because the proposal
process is part of the rules?
I would argue the proposal process is nonspecific in its allowances for
changes in power, at least specifically through an instrument taking
effect. Rule 105 (Rule Changes), for example, specifies that an instrument
taking effect can "change the power of a rule." There is no such
specification for changing the power of other entities, such as Agora, and
therefore Agora is not specifically allowed by the rules to have non-zero
power. In contrast, R106 sets and resets Power of proposals quite
specifically, though ultimately there is a range of Powers that could be
applied. Each value in that range is specifically allowed through the
proposal process, so long as it is the value of the proposal's AI, which is
determined in a specific process. By the same reasoning, a proposal that
changes the Power of another proposal would be ineffective.
R106 is what "allows" proposals to have a non-zero power, and in a very
specific way. The AI of a proposal is set by its author. Then the proposal
is adopted, causing its power to change to its AI. This is the only
instance in which a proposal is specifically allowed to have a non-zero
power.
What's important is that this specific way changed when proposal 7940 took
effect. Now the process is as follows: The AI of a proposal is set by its
author. Then the proposal is adopted, causing its power to change to its
AI, and then back to zero. This is now the only instance, a much shorter
one, in which a proposal is specifically allowed to have a non-zero power.
Therefore all proposals not being adopted, outside of the stipulations of
the rules, have zero power.
Therefore, the "reenacted" proposals would have Power zero, and this CFJ
should be judged FALSE.
(This means Proposal 7940 is the cause of failure, not Proposal 9302.)
===
I favor this case if the Arbitor needs someone to take it later.
--
snail
Steampunk Hat
