RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again

[Greg Ritter <gritter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:42 PM 1/10/2002 -0600, you wrote:
> >> Hypothetical situation:
> >>
> >> I submit four proposals.  Someone forgets to count them.  All four
> get
> >> adopted and enacted.
> >Cannot happen. We may *think* they've all been adopted and enacted, but
> we'd be
> >wrong. Just as if the admin changed all the rules to "banana" - *our
> records* might
> >say that, but the *actual rules* wouldn't.
>
> No, it does happen.  Under the statute of limitations, if no one noted
> the discrepancy and submitted a CFJ, those changes to the game state
> would be regarded as legal once the statute of limitations expired.  The
> rules and game state are changed -- actually changed -- until someone
> CFJs and a ruling is made that invalidates the changes.


But in that case, the game state would not have been changed by the lack of 
a CFJ, but rather the game state would have been changed by the Statute of 
Limitations rule which codified the erroneous records into the game state, 
thus making them part of the game state.

Again a real life example: if a criminal is not convicted within the 
statute of limitations for his crime, then while the crime is not erased 
from history, for all intents and purposes the judicial and legislative 
systems must behave as if it had been. In effect, the error has been 
codified by the inaction.

Conceptually, that's what a statute of limitations is: the resolution of a 
mistake by codifying it as part of the current state of affairs.


> In any event, I'll grant that there are cases where only the records
> need to be changed, to match the actual game state (e.g. your banana
> example).  But there are others where changes have actually taken place,
> and must be reversed.

Yup. So what?

I guess reversing actions could be a violation of rule 17/0 (which is 
problematic in a lot of ways, I think).