Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Tuesday morning)

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 4/30/02 at 10:02 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>> 
>> 
>>> As for the deletion, it couldn't happen, because, if a Charter Prop is
>>> determined to not be a proposal, there's no provision for modifying a
>> Charter
>>> Prop.  And if it's still a proposal, then it can't be modified after
>> voting
>>> started.  What you were looking for was something at the beginning that
>> said,
>>> "...then this proposal has no effect."
>> 
>> No, it can't be *revised* after voting. Thus, if it changes itself, that's
>> perfectly okay, by the same logic that says the admin can Rectify stuff
>> during Voting.
> 
> The logic that says the admin can rectify stuff during voting is the Typo
> rule.  There is no similar logic that allows a proposal to alter itself.
> There is no provision at all for proposals to be deleted.  Aside from a
> rectification to remove a typo, the only explicit logic present for changing a
> proposal is r19, which says proposals can only be revised by their original
> author (which the proposal isn't), and that proposals can't be revised during
> voting.  So either deleting a proposal is a form of revision, and thus
> regulated, or it's an un-explicitly-permitted change to the game state, and
> thus illegal.
> 
> Besides, since the statement that deletes the proposal is in the proposal,
> it'd only happen if the proposal actually passed.  It could only pass with
> those vote counts if it's a Charter Prop, in which case it can't delete itself
> because Charter Props weren't vested with that sort of authority.  If it
> failed, the deletion instruction in the proposal couldn't have been performed.
> 
> So the proposal is still there.  It may not have had any effect, but it's
> still there.
> 
> Glotmorf
> 
> 
By that logic, your own entropy circumvention prop. is illegal, as it
attempts to change its own text.
-- 
Wonko