On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 2:52 AM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > ============================== CFJ 2386 ============================== > > On or about Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:28:36 +0000, a rule was created > or amended to contain the text "comex and ais523 were here".
CFJ2376 established that the text of Proposal 6072 was changed to a form that would insert the required language in R2238; the only remaining issue is whether the Agoran Decision to adopt it was a decision to adopt the proposal as it was distributed or in the form it had when the decision was resolved. R107(a) specifically uses the example "the adoption of proposal 4781" as a matter to be decided. It doesn't refer to the adoption of a proposal with a specific text, but to the adoption of a proposal with a specified ID. While the rules offer no guidance specifically regarding the text of a proposal, game custom in another area does give a bit of guidance. When a proposal references a rule by number, changes made by the proposal are taken to effect the rule in the form it had when the decision to adopt the proposal is resolved, not the form it had when the proposal was submitted. When a proposal quotes a part of a rule to replace with other text, and the original text ceases to be part of the rule before the proposal takes effect, the proposal is deemed to have failed rather than to change the rule to what it would be if it was replaced with the old version of itself plus the changes made by the proposal. Analogously, the decision to adopt a proposal contains a reference to the proposal by ID, and when the decision is resolved the reference is followed and the current version of the proposal takes effect. That the decision to adopt it and the essential parameters of the proposal itself aren't linked by anything more than this reference can be seen in the explicit ability for Support Democracy to change an essential parameter of a decision (whether it's Democratic or Ordinary) without affecting the proposal itself, as well as the power of the Wielder of Veto to affect the AI of a decision to adopt a proposal without affecting the proposal itself. I judge CFJ 2386 TRUE. Tangentially, the message resolving the decision to adopt P6072 contained a factual error, but not one that would cause it to fail. In eir resolution, ais523 claimed that a VI >= 3 was required for the proposal to pass. It was not; the AI of the proposal itself was increased to 3, but the AI of the decision to adopt it was never increased. R208 does not require an accurate statement of the VI required for the proposal to pass, just an accurate tally of the votes.
