Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On 5/7/23 16:46, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. I guess this is the last time I try to write compromise text, if it's going to be used to twist my meaning. -- nix Prime Minister, Herald
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:17 AM Aspen via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:01 AM Janet Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > >> [Proposal 8639 > > >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > > > > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > > > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even > > > by > > > r105 standards? > > > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > > > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. > > > > > > Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. > > > > I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > > title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to > > that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule > > rather than that my reading is wrong). > > > > My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only > > and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is > > inherently ambiguous. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > I CFJ 'Rule 879, "Quorum", has power 3.0.' I bar Janet. (I'd bar G. > too if I could - neither of them is biased, but I'm hoping for a third > opinion here.) Context can be found in the thread above. While you didn't file with the referee (won't be offended if you decide to withdraw and go with referee), I'll be sure to choose a judge that's not me (and without known-to-me biases on this). In fact, ITT this is a particularly good for a "newer" judge, as long standing "we've always read it that way" quibbles that resolve around exact text interpretation can benefit from a fresh reading by people not solidified in the game culture of the issue. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On 5/2/23 01:01, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> [Proposal 8639 >> failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. > > If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to > miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by > r105 standards? > I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a > rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text. Well, past me is an idiot and I disavow everything they've said. I've been consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's title" doesn't work, and AFAIK there have been no legal challenges to that (and it was suggested in Discord to legislate a different rule rather than that my reading is wrong). My reading is that R105 makes "amend" in the context of a rule mean only and exactly changing the text of the rule, and any other usage is inherently ambiguous. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:38 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > [Proposal 8639 > failed to make this change because it used "amend" for a power change. If everyone involved including you knew what it meant at the time so as to miss the “error” entirely, how could it possibly have been unclear, even by r105 standards? I maintain that “amend a rule’s power” is a clear synonym for “change a rules power” and is obviously not amending a rule’s text.
