Jonathan Van Matre on 31 Jan 2002 20:51:50 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-discuss: CFJ 325

Iain submitted:  "Statement: (1) This CFJ is permited by the rule 129, (2) and Rule 10 is not repealed."

OK, we have a real problem here, and I'm throwing my thinking so far on this CFJ out for comment by the group before issuing a final ruling.

The heart of the problem is this:  Rule 17 says "Actions occur upon reaching the appropriate Fora."  This would seem to suggest that anything happens as soon as it reaches the forum, and therefore UP repealed rule 10 at the time eir message arrived.

However, there's precedent for this not being the case.  E.g. "A proposal is not considered 'recognized'until it has been assigned a serial number by the Administrator."  This, even though the proposal is created by posting an action to the public forum.

This leads me to suspect that the spirit and intent of Rule 17 is that the timing of any events caused by a successful, legal action is considered to be at the moment the action arrived in the forum, even though the action does not "happen" until recognized.  The title of Rule 17,"Timing Of Events", and the remainder of Rule 17's text seem to support this interpretation.

So, one can sort of make the case that UP's repealing action never happened because it was a) illegal, and b) never recognized.  

Furthermore, Iain's CFJ can be taken to be in reference *not* to UP's original action (which hasn't happened yet, but if the Administrator recognized it right now and repealed rule 10, rule 10 would have been repealed as of the moment UP's action arrived in the forum), but to eir assertion on 1/29 that the repeal action was made legal by the statute of limitations.  This makes part (1) of Iain's CFJ true.

Then, by rule 18, part (2) is true because the rule change action was not permitted in the manner employed by UP.

But the problem is that all of this turns on reading into the presumed spirit and intent of Rule 17, because if one takes it at face value, I can't really see any way that UP didn't repeal Rule 10.

The interaction between 129 and 17 makes for a really wretched situation.  UP's revision of the statute of limitations suddenly makes a whole lot of sense to me, because it in effect renders the statute of limitations in a way that concurs with my preferred interpretation of rule 17 -- his repeal of rule 10 wouldn't be considered legal until 2 weeks after the Admin had recognized it and implemented it.  Which he probably wouldn't have done anyway, since it was illegal according to the rules in effect at the time.

Thoughts?  Suggestions?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin Doig [mailto:gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 7:07 AM
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: spoon-discuss: Re: Proosal
> > <proosal>
> > <title>You can't even see.</title>
> > <body>
> > Amend rule 212, if it exists, by
> > replacing "three" with "5".
> > [[If 266 fails, at least we'll have an 
> > alternative.]]
> > </body>
> > </proosal>
> >
> > uin.
> > I repeal rule 10!
> >
> It's now been (over) an nweek since I performed the above 
> actions. Therefore, they are considered to be legal (by rule 
> 129), and rule 10 is no more (or possibly has been no more 
> since then, but it doesn't matter at the moment which).
> Possible reasons for this to fail:
> CFJ136 - not relevant, as that CFJ was submitted and judged 
> *before* the statute kicked in.
> R152 - it *is* permitted by the rules (specifically, r129 permits it).
> The fact that my action came after my signature - there's 
> nothing to prohibit this, and we have the precedent of the 
> admin recognising my point transfers of yesterday, which also 
> came after my sig. What a convenient coincidence ;-)
> uin.
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at
> Win a ski trip!