On 10/31/20 5:02 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 04:57:31PM -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On 10/31/20 4:55 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 08:51:14PM -0400, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>>>> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
>>>>
>>>> Title: I definitely authored this
>>>> Adoption index: 2.0
>>>> Author: ATMunn
>>>> Co-author: Jason
>>>>
>>>> Amend Rule 2531 by replacing the first paragraph with the following:
>>>> {
>>>> Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include value of
>>>> the fine in blots, the name of the person being fined (the perp), and the
>>>> specific reason for the fine.
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Amend Rule 2531 by renumbering the list so that the numbers start at 1 and
>>>> end at 10, with each number other than the fist one higher than the
>>>> previous.
>>> I'm confused. What do you consider to be the first paragraph of that rule?
>>>
>>> If item (1) was part of the first paragraph, then the amended rule will
>>> only have 9 list items.
>>>
>>> If item (1) was not part of the first paragraph, then it will still be
>>> there so that text will appear twice.
>>>
>> The first paragraph contains the first list item. By precedent,
>> paragraph structure is determined by prose, not formatting. Once that is
>> removed, there will be 10 list items. Right now it looks like there are
>> 9 because there are two number 5s due to a slightly broken proposal.
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
> Okay, that makes more sense, but I'm still skeptical. Can you say more
> about that precedent? Normally the only way I can tell for sure where
> one paragraph ends and the next starts is formatting (a blank line).
The precedent was established in CFJ 3452 and reaffirmed in CFJs 3777-3778.
>
> I'd be more comfortable if changes specified in proposals didn't rely on
> CFJ precedents unless they're really obvious and uncontroversial. (CFJ
> judgments can turn out to have been incorrect, right?)
>
Sure, they can turn out to be wrong, but I think in this case
specifically it's clear enough.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor
