i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>
> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> game quantities other than winning.
>
> For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by R106, a
> proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
> then
> is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> "continue having effect" once its done.
>
> On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
> as
> > described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal that
> > says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
> expunge
> > any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured by
> the
> > Rule?
> >
> > The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> secured
> > changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively
> > giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting catch.
> >>
> >> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> >> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> >> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> described"
> >> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> >> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> >> knowledge.
> >>
> >> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> has
> >>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
> >>> Agoran week."
> >>>
> >>> Caller's Evidence ================= Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
> >>> [Power=2]
> >>>
> >>> Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> >>> restricted to persons.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> >>> [...]
> >>> If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
> >>> emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> >>> emself by announcement.
> >>>
> >>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> >>>
> >>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> announcement,
> >>> subject to modification by its backing document. An
> indestructible
> >>> asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT
> be
> >>> destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> >>> specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
> >>> or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Caller's Arguments
> >>> ==================
> >>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> emself,
> >>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
> >>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
> >>> other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
> >>> indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
> >>> Player.
> >>>
> >>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
> the
> >>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
> >>> 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and
> >>> then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
> >>> conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a
> certain
> >>> rule.
> >>>
> >>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
> ("Precedence
> >>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
> >>> precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots
> >>> CANNOT be destroyed.
> >>>
> >>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
> >>>
> >>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
> will
> >>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
> >>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant.
> I
> >>> was unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by
> >>> searching the statements of CFJs.]
> >>>
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
