D. Wet attempted to submit a proposal with the words "I propose to create a new rule....". Previously, I found that this unambiguously created a proposal with the text following the word 'to'. A majority of Agorans voted to send the case back to me.
A proposal must mandatorily 'specify' its text (R 2350). An ambiguous text is not specific, so by definition it is not specified. About half of Agorans take one interpretation of this text while half take the other interpretation, which is very powerful evidence that the text is deeply ambiguous. Because this is so, D. Wet failed to create a proposal. It must be said that even if half of agorans took a certain interpretation, I would still reject that interpretation if it was completely unreasonable. There have been and will be occasions where many agorans fail to act reasonably, and judges are not hostage to public opinion. Nonetheless, I think it is perfectly reasonable to be confused about where, if anywhere, the proposal's actual text begins here. I judge CFJ 3922 FALSE. -- R. Lee
