Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? —Tanner L. Swett The annotation for CFJ 1776 in the FLR, attached to the rule on deputisation, is worded much more generally than that. It would be prohibitive to include keywords for every possible office-required activity.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. That's a very nice precedent, not dated at all when phrased as if an officer can be punished as the net result of not doing something, doing it is a requirement. thx. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? I don't know if anyone reads those things, but I just updated the FLR annotation for that case to mention the specific issue.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: On 06/15/2011 12:13 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I intend to deputize to Rotate the Bench. Hmm. Proto-CFJ for discussion (not CFJ for obvious reasons - need a justiciar!): It is possible to deputize to Rotate The Bench. CFJ 1776 states (using dated terminology) that it is possible to deputise for the purpose of rotating the bench as long as there is indeed a practical requirement to rotate the bench. H. Murphy, would it be possible to somehow annotate CFJ 1776 in the database so that doing a statement text search for rotating the bench would make it show up? —Tanner L. Swett The annotation for CFJ 1776 in the FLR, attached to the rule on deputisation, is worded much more generally than that. It would be prohibitive to include keywords for every possible office-required activity. Yep! Though it would be worth adding to that annotation the part about if an officer can be found guilty for not doing it, it's a requirement.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, omd wrote: The language about implementing provisions was added in 594/3, by Proposal 3445 in 1997 (the ruleset immediately before, according to the history in agora_zefram0, did not contain the word implemented). Ah yes, I see, 594/4 perturbed it for the town fountain scam, then 594/6 put it back (I was searching on a longer phrase). thx.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On 06/03/11 10:30, Charles Walker wrote: Gratuitous: We still have this in R106 (power 3): If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. Sure, but the current rules don't say that it causes the proposals instructions to be followed. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On 3 June 2011 18:44, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 06/03/11 10:30, Charles Walker wrote: Gratuitous: We still have this in R106 (power 3): If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. Sure, but the current rules don't say that it causes the proposals instructions to be followed. -scshunt What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On 06/03/11 10:47, Charles Walker wrote: What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? Turn into a monkey? It does whatever the rules say which, presently, is nothing. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
[This time from my subscribed e-mail.] On 6/3/11 11:10 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 10:47, Charles Walker wrote: What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? Turn into a monkey? It does whatever the rules say which, presently, is nothing. In the absence of a rule defining take effect, per R754, we are to use the mathematical, legal, or ordinary-language definition of the term. Although this certainly should be more explicit in the rules, I think the ordinary-language or legal definition of take effect does not break the game. - woggle signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: [This time from my subscribed e-mail.] On 6/3/11 11:10 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 10:47, Charles Walker wrote: What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? Turn into a monkey? It does whatever the rules say which, presently, is nothing. In the absence of a rule defining take effect, per R754, we are to use the mathematical, legal, or ordinary-language definition of the term. Although this certainly should be more explicit in the rules, I think the ordinary-language or legal definition of take effect does not break the game. I, on the other hand, think takes effect means that the text of the proposal is set to effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: [This time from my subscribed e-mail.] On 6/3/11 11:10 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 10:47, Charles Walker wrote: What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? Turn into a monkey? It does whatever the rules say which, presently, is nothing. In the absence of a rule defining take effect, per R754, we are to use the mathematical, legal, or ordinary-language definition of the term. Although this certainly should be more explicit in the rules, I think the ordinary-language or legal definition of take effect does not break the game. I, on the other hand, think takes effect means that the text of the proposal is set to effect. take effect 1. To become operative, as under law or regulation. 2. To produce the desired reaction.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On 3 June 2011 20:35, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote: [This time from my subscribed e-mail.] On 6/3/11 11:10 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 06/03/11 10:47, Charles Walker wrote: What else does a proposal do when it takes effect? Turn into a monkey? It does whatever the rules say which, presently, is nothing. In the absence of a rule defining take effect, per R754, we are to use the mathematical, legal, or ordinary-language definition of the term. Although this certainly should be more explicit in the rules, I think the ordinary-language or legal definition of take effect does not break the game. I, on the other hand, think takes effect means that the text of the proposal is set to effect. take effect 1. To become operative, as under law or regulation. 2. To produce the desired reaction. ...which is exactly the intention of 'take effect' in the rules. -- Charles Walker
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Charles Walker wrote: take effect 1. To become operative, as under law or regulation. 2. To produce the desired reaction. H. Rulekeepor omd, Is it possible to search all 13K versions of your rules at once? The following text is in R594/3 in the oldest FLR in the archives, and the text was added by Proposal 4329 (9 June 2002). I'm trying to find if it was wholly created then or condensed from a previous differently- numbered rule that existed pre-June 2002: When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. (The explicit definition of take effect as provisions implemented was removed when this paragraph was moved to R106 by Proposal 4811, 20 June 2005). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. Sure, but the current rules don't say that it causes the proposals instructions to be followed. Gratuitous: I personally think the idea that it doesn't is ridiculous. As other people have mentioned, the ordinary language meaning is that the clauses of the proposal, well, take effect... and there is no reason to suppose an alternate definition.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: hrm
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 3 Jun 2011, Charles Walker wrote: take effect 1. To become operative, as under law or regulation. 2. To produce the desired reaction. H. Rulekeepor omd, Is it possible to search all 13K versions of your rules at once? The following text is in R594/3 in the oldest FLR in the archives, and the text was added by Proposal 4329 (9 June 2002). No, P4329 was later: Amended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 So... Initial Rule 210 already used the term take effect without defining it: An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. So did Rule 594/1: A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The language about implementing provisions was added in 594/3, by Proposal 3445 in 1997 (the ruleset immediately before, according to the history in agora_zefram0, did not contain the word implemented).
