(CFJ 2415: The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal that is not in the Proposal Pool.) (CFJ 2416: The Promotor MAY distribute a proposal that is not in the Proposal Pool.)
First, I judge CFJ 2416 TRUE. The "rule in question" (as per the definition of MAY) is clearly R106; and R106 does not make anything ILLEGAL, just various things impossible. (Note that MAY probably should be redefined.) As for CFJ 2415, I judge it TRUE, but with a caveat. A proposal can be distributed by the Promotor publishing it with the clear intent of distributing it, no matter whether it's in the Proposal Pool at the time or not. (Rule 106 doesn't care about the location at all, although the proposal gets removed from the Pool if it's there at the time.) However, in order to distribute a proposal, it must exist; and the only method of creating a proposal places it in the Proposal Pool. Therefore, in order to distribute a proposal that isn't in the pool, the proposal must previously have been removed from the pool. So in other words, it's possible for the Promotor to redistribute a proposal that has already been distributed; however, doing so does not change its ID number. If a new ID number is written next to the proposal name, it's therefore either a different proposal (which must have been submitted, or the attempt to distribute fails), or a lie. I also notice that I've never seen the Promotor attempt to redistribute an already-distributed proposal, and all purported distributions have used new ID numbers, so cases of CFJ 2415 are probably FALSE in practice. Note that it's possible for the Promotor to create and distribute a proposal in the same message; publishing a body of text with a clear indication that it's intended to be a proposal causes it to become a proposal, and attempting to distribute something is a clear intention that it's intended to be a proposal. Therefore, if the Promotor attempts to distribute a body of text not a proposal at the time, assigning a new ID number to it, it goes into and immediately out of the proposal pool, except that the Promotor is the author of the resulting proposal. A rather interesting bug comes up at this point. Rule 106 states that removing a proposal from the proposal pool initiates an Agoran Decision to adopt it, full stop. Rule 107 states that an Agoran Decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice that sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This seems to be a clear contradiction (in the case that the notice is invalid or nonexistent); rule 106 takes precedence in this case. (This is all irrelevant to the CFJ, but possibly relevant to the intent behind it, and rather interesting.) -- ais523 Judge, CFJs 2415-2416
