On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The quoted notice is invalid because it lacks information required by
>> Rule 107. Specifically, the following information was not provided:
>>
>> (c) A clear indication of the options available.
>
> CFJ 1800 (and indirectly 1650 and 1722) set the precedent that if this
> is not explicitly specified, then it's implicit in the nature of the
> matter to be decided (i.e. whether to adopt a proposal).
CFJs 1722 and 1800 dealt with initiating dependent actions at a time
when that required initiating an Agoran decision. There are reasons
why any person might have cause to initiate a dependent action at any
time, and dependent actions had previously been, as they are now,
performable without all the overhead of Agoran decisions. Therefore,
messages initiating dependent action Agoran decisions should be
treated rather leniently. In the case of proposal distributions,
especially now that the Promotor is a machine, but even with a human
Promotor who can copy and paste from a template, we should be much
more stringent.
CFJ 1650... well, then, as now, we have the "best interests of the
game" argument, since many proposals have been distributed allegedly
improperly. At worst we have a ratified ruleset, and self-ratifying
documents purporting to resolve Agoran decisions (although
self-ratification has not always existed, and Rules 2034 and 208 might
take precedence over Rule 1551, Ratification, and prevent the
ratification from being effective), but if some Rules sprang into
existence at different times than we thought, that causes more than a
little gamestate chaos.
But I am curious why Murphy's judgement of CFJ 1650 claims that the
Speaker is the vote collector of proposals when memory, RCS, and email
all agree that it was the Assessor.
--
hopefully
minor evil
