> On May 25, 2026, at 3:26 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. > > I argue that "has finished" should be interpreted as referring to the > past, in which case Proposal 6069 was set to Power 0 when Proposal 9302 > was adopted. ais523 argues that it should be interpreted as referring to > the present (i.e. the same moment as "at any time"), but the former > interpretation was the explicit intent of Proposal 9302: > > "[To see the difference, consider a proposal that took effect > before the to-be-replaced language was in place.]" > > and also the more natural reading, and thus it's in the best interests > of the game to favor it. > > If Proposal 6069 had Power 0 when the scam was attempted, then "the ... > rules changes that [the] proposal would perform if it took effect right > now" was an empty set: the proposal would /attempt/ to perform a rule > change, but would fail due to lack of Power. > > > Caller's evidence: > > Proposal 9328 adopted, scam attempted > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2026-April/019200.html > > Proposal 6069 originally adopted > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-February/005749.html > > Ruleset in effect when Proposal 6069 was originally adopted > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2009-January/005739.html > > Rule 106 amended by Proposal 7940 > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2017-November/012015.html > > Rule 106 amended by Rule 9302 > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2026-March/019066.html > > -- > [ANSC H:GE]
I call for judgement on the following statements and submit said CFJs to the Referee: "It is LEGAL for the Arbitor to assign Janet to the quoted CFJ." "If Janet were to favor the quoted CFJ, it would be LEGAL for the Arbitor to assign Janet to the quoted CFJ." And just for fun, I CFJ on this statement, too (also submitted to the Referee): "The Arbitor MAY assign a player other than emself to judge the quoted CFJ." Arguments: === These CFJs all turn not on the rules, but on Regulation AA0, "Obligations on the Arbitor". This is part of the Arbitor's administrative regulations, which Rule 2630, "The Administrative State", forbids the Arbitor from violating. The first paragraph of Regulation AA0 forbids the Arbitor from assigning a CFJ to a judge who has a clear conflict of interest. Since the quoted CFJ is about a scam and Janet is one of the perpetrators of that scam, I believe that this is trivially fulfilled, and so the Arbitor SHALL NOT assign Janet to this CFJ. The first CFJ is therefore FALSE. The second CFJ is more interesting. The second paragraph of AA0 requires the Arbitor to prioritize assigning CFJs to players interested in judging, and then goes on to define who those players are. The third paragraph says that, "the above notwithstanding", the Arbitor MAY assign a player who has favored a CFJ as judge. It seems quite likely that "the above" was intended only to apply to the second paragraph - favoring a CFJ is clearly intended as a mechanism by which a player can make themselves "interested in judging" one CFJ in particular, rather than CFJs generally. However, if taken literally, the notwithstanding clause clearly includes the first paragraph in its scope. Therefore, players who have favored a CFJ are exempt from the conflict of interest clause, and the second CFJ is TRUE. The third CFJ is honestly mostly for fun. As Janet's scam gives em (along with ais523) considerable power over the game and its other players, one could argue that ALL players have a clear conflict of interest in this case. In this case, the notwithstanding clause would allow the Arbitor to assign the case to emself (or the Referee, but e is barred from this case) but not to any other player! I have no idea whether this is a reasonable interpretation or not, I leave that to the judge's discretion. === - Galle
