Arguments: That clause was intended to allow scshunt to cause a high-AI proposal that had previously been adopted (so high-Power) to take effect again. It was ruled in CFJ 3277 that this constitutes a substantive change to the proposal and so fails.
Sent from my iPhone On Apr 10, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Wes Contreras <w...@antitribu.com> wrote: >> We call for judgment on the following statement: >> >> "scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause a proposal to take effect." >> >> We believe this statement to be false, as it conflicts with Rule 106, >> which states: >> >> If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal >> that has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take >> effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. >> >> This would appear to be a clear conflict, and as Rule 106 has greater >> Power, this would appear to render that element of Rule 2380 >> ineffective. > > Arguments: for Agoran Decisions that do not have an outcome of > ADOPTED, I think the answer is uncontroversially FALSE. For Agoran > Decisions that do have an outcome of ADOPTED (and, in particular, ones > with a Power greater than 1), the question is more interesting. > > ―Machiavelli
