I CFJ on the following:
Proposal 6740 awarded a win to one or more players.
Linked CFJ:
If Proposal 6740 had been AI-3 and been adopted and taken effect at power-3,
it would have awarded a win to one or more players.
Arguments:
It's too late to appeal the judgement of TRUE on the same statement (CF2808).
At issue (not considered by the 2808 judge) is whether, when a Proposal states
in its text that it awards a win, does it:
(a) actually award a win; or
(b) merely purport to award a win, which is "intercepted" by
R2188 into a win condition (not directly awarded by the proposal).
Note that the Proposal text directly states "award a win". We often allow
proposals to set values that we otherwise CANNOT set. Winning is not
"secured" in explicit words, but perhaps R2186 restricts winning to
defined win conditions and therefore does in fact count as secured-2
by R1688 definitions (hence the question on whether a power-3 version
would override R2186). A lower-powered proposal may also conflict
with R2140(c)'s "modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument"
clause.
But these sort of CANNOTs have been overridden by proposals in the past
without blinking an eye! When we install an officer by Proposal, or
reset currencies or points directly, that's something we also generally
CANNOT do, but we've taken it to work, even in a power-1 proposal...
Evidence:
> Proposal 6740 (Purple, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by ais523
> The first rule of this proposal is...
>
> Award a win to player who did not acknowledge the existence of this
> proposal in a public or discussion forum after the time it was submitted
> and before the time it was adopted.
