I temporarily deputise for the Arbitor to assign the below CFJ #3939 and
assign it to R. Lee.
CFJ Statement: My attempt to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule "The
Device" above succeeded.
Called by: ais523
Called on: 31 Dec 2021 03:06:46 +0000
Assigned to: R. Lee (as of this message)
Arguments and evidence in context below.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Message-ID: <7f1491b065640f215724cb1e5c85f5b280367971.ca...@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: BUS: (CFJ, @Rulekeepor) Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2021 03:06:46 +0000
From: ais523 via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org>
On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 20:11 +0000, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 20:09 +0000, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> > The Device is on.
> >
> > I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> > "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
> > device is on:" list:
> > {{{
> > > An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran Device by publishing a
> > > notice satisfying the following conditions:
> > >
> > > 1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
> > > Device.
> > >
> > > 2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
> > > initiation of the Device, a player.
> > >
> > > 3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be devised.
> > >
> > > 4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
> > > the voting method.
> > >
> > > 5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
> > > the identified vote.
> > >
> > > 6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same Device.
> > }}}
> > [I realised just in time that I forgot to do this this week – luckily
> > I'm still within the deadline. Going with Jason's suggestion. I'd
> > normally add this sort of thing to the "off" list, but the text
> > mentions "the initiation of the Device" which probably only makes sense
> > while the Device is on.]
> >
> > Incidentally, I believe the "grammatical variations" rule requires me
> > to replace "decided" with "devised", so I've done so above, but someone
> > might want to CFJ on that. Just to be on the safe side with respect to
> > SHALLs, I *also* intend, with Agoran Consent, to do the same thing
> > except with "decided" rather than "devised".
>
> And just in case my formatting mistake above causes problems later: I
> intend the same things, but without the email quotation markup between
> the {{{ and }}} marks (as arguably that's being quoted too).
With Agoran Consent, I do so (using the intent where the text does not
contain quote marks and with "decided"). Falsifian and Jason supported;
there were no objections. Disclaimer: this may fail if the correct
wording is "devised" rather than "decided"; see the CFJ below.
I believe I'm not required to resolve the intents that contain a
formatting mistake, even though they have the required support, because
the text is incorrect and thus I neither CAN nor SHALL resolve them –
the procedure for creating those intents was not followed correctly.
The intent without the formatting mistake, but with "devised", does not
currently have Agoran Consent.
CFJ: My attempt to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule "The Device" above
succeeded.
Evidence: This message, including the messages quoted within it.
Arguments: Rule 2655(c) requires me to replace each instance of a
chosen noun with "Device", "(including grammatical variations, e.g.
replacing "<noun>'s" with "Device's")". Does "decided" count as a
grammatical variation of "decision" for this purpose? If so, is the
corresponding grammatical variation of "device" "devised"? I think that
a parallel exists: a decision is something that has been decided, and a
device is something that has been devised (and etymologically,
"decision" and "decided" have the same root word, Latin "decidere").
If "decided" does count as a variation of "decision", then the rule
amendment failed because I didn't replace every word that I should
have.
--
ais523
Mad Engineer
