On 6/26/20 7:50 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/20 8:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —
>> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger
>> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend
>> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned:
>
> Oooh, time for more semantics!
>
> Rule 2626:
>
>> Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as
>> a patch), causing it to become pending.
>
> My reading of this would be that any player CAN certify any proposal
> (even one that is already pending), which also makes em cause the
> proposal to become pending as a side effect. This would mean that the
> pending can fail independently of the certification, and R2626 says "A
> player SHALL NOT certify a proposal...", rather than prohibiting the
> pending itself.
>
> I made a similar argument in CFJ 3769 [0], but the language was slightly
> different in that the rule in that case was written in the passive voice
> ("the gamestate is modified" vs R2626's "causing it to become pending").
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
Regardless of the interpretation of this clause, "pending" a proposal is
flipping its switch. You can't flip a switch to the same value it
already has, per R2162.
--
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
