Following recusal, I assign the reconsideration of CFJ 3922 to R. Lee.
(E favoured on discord)
On 2021-08-09 08:33, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
Telna wrote:
The below CFJ is 3922. I assign it to Murphy.
=====
D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days.
Called by Aspen: Tue 03 Aug 2021 05:56:10
=====
On 2021-08-03 15:55, Aspen via agora-business wrote:
On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 9:31 AM D. Wet via agora-business
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I propose to create a new Rule in the Agoran commmunity to be adopted
according to the current rule adoption procedure. The Rule is:
Onboarding of Newly Activated Players
1. Newly Activated Players MUST be requested to take their first Action
in a timely fashion after being switched to Active.
2. Players that are Active less than one month MUST actively be
educated
when their Action is IMPOSSIBLE within the current Ruleset.
3. The education in referred to in 2. MUST contain references to N
specific Rules numbers as to why their Action is ILLEGAL within the
current Ruleset. N is at least 1 and at most 3 and NEED NOT to lead
to a
POSSIBLE Action when taken into account during the next try to act.
I'm afraid it's a bit unclear whether this worked. Submitting
proposals is governed by Rule 2350. There's specific information that
needs to be specified when you create a proposal. A lot of it is
optional, but the one thing that's absolutely essential is the text.
Here, it's unclear where the text of the proposal begins and ends.
I CFJ "D. Wet has created a proposal in the last 7 days."
The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107,
Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which part of
this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat
unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation
still leads to a proposal that, if adopted, would attempt to create a
rule. (Though that would bring up a similar question of whether
"Onboarding of Newly Activated Players" should be interpreted as that
rule's title, or part of its body text.)
TRUE.
On 2021-08-16 07:43, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
Aspen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2021 at 4:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
<agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On 8/8/2021 3:33 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
The rules actually say "clearly specify" at one other point (Rule 107,
Initiating Agoran Decisions). In this case, while "exactly which
part of
this message constitutes the text of the intended proposal" is somewhat
unclear, it isn't substantially unclear; any reasonable interpretation
still leads to a proposal that,
I intend to motion to reconsider this judgement with 2 support.
In this judgement, the judge is (1) claiming the text is clearly
specified, but (2) then says it's somewhat unclear, but then (3) says
any
reasonable interpretation works, but (4) then doesn't actually give an
interpretation, that's not clarifying at all (in direct contradiction to
the stated judgement).
Regardless of the fact that multiple interpretations might lead to a
proposal that gives the same result, that does not make a single text
clear, and a single text is required. If "any reasonable" interpretation
is possible, then there's no clear single interpretation, which the rule
requires.
-G.
I strongly support and do so.
-The Promotor, who likes knowing what e supposed to put in eir reports
I recuse myself from this CFJ, but request that the new judge address
how the absence of "clearly" in Rule 2350 (Proposals) affects this
case. (Obviously it would be a good thing to fix legislatively.)
On 2021-08-24 07:11, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
On 8/15/2021 22:39, Telna via agora-official wrote:
Following recusal, I assign the reconsideration of CFJ 3922 to ATMunn.
I recuse myself from this case. I humbly apologize for not getting
around to this sooner. I intended to judge this case, but I have been
busier than expected recently.
