spoon-business: CFI 708 Appeal

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/02 at 4:31 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Rob Speer,
>
>> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:56:36AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
>>> Glotmorf's Holy Order of Points CFI is 708, assigned (randomly -- I'll
>>> only handpick the judges if it's really important IMO) to Rob.
>>
>> That's convenient. I judge TRUE.
>
>I appeal CFI 708, citing CFJ 254 as precedent. [[That was the one where
>Bean
>ruled that the effects of rules created by proposals did not count as
>effects of the proposals themselves.]]

As a designated member of the Upper House, I judge TRUE on CFI 708.

Analysis:

Aside from the analysis Plaintiff provided when CFI 708 was created, I also point out that CFJ 254, claimed by Appelant as precedent for the appeal, is not as current as the current version of Rule 155, which was cited in the CFI's analysis.

To quote from the analysis of CFJ 254:

"So, the statement boils down to: "The immediate effects of a rule are included in the actions of the proposal that created it." This is not defined anywhere in the rules."

This is no longer the case; Rule 155/1 ties the generation of effects of a proposal to the act of modifying the rules.

Quoting further:

"Not to mention, there is nothing in the rules which states that a rule cannot determine who voted for the proposal which created it, and so by Rule 18, it is allowed."

Again, this is no longer the case; Rule 155/1 says rules generate no effects based on the way players vote on the proposal that resulted in the rule being created.

Rule 155 does not in fact tie particular rules to their parent proposals; Rule 155 focuses on whether a proposal changes the rules and causes such-and-such a result; thus the results are tied to the proposal through the act of changing the rules.  This means it does not matter if Proposal A creates Rule B which creates Rule C which creates Rule D which produces the effects; it only matters that Proposal A caused a change in the rules that resulted in the effects.  So unless it can be proven that Rule D came about as a result of some other cause, causality traces back to Proposal A.

I have said.

						Glotmorf