spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: M-Tek

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Shame on you, submitting swiss-cheese CFJs like this...

On 5/13/02 at 4:45 PM Wonko wrote:

><CFJ>
>There is no club called M-Tek.
>
>Defendant: Glotmorf
>
>Analysis:
>As Glotmorf has repeatedly insisted, Charter Props are not normal Props.
>Because the Charter Rule says so, Charter Props are put on the Ballot and
>voted on. However, the Charter Rule does not account for the following
>things which they are excluded from by not being proposals:
>They don't recieve Serial Numbers (r5)

R5 doesn't say only proposals get serial numbers, or even that only revisable objects get serial numbers; it only says that revisable objects explicitly do get serial numbers.  If a Charter Prop is a revisable object, it can have a serial number.  If it's not a revisable object, is there anything that says it can't have a serial number?

And even if it can't have a serial number, so what?  Gnomes don't have serial numbers either, and that doesn't stop them from being game entities and changing the game state under certain circumstances.

>They may attempt to temporarily circumvent the rules (r10)

The submitting of a Charter Prop is a Game Action.  Game Actions can't temporarily circumvent the rules.  And there's no provision in the Charter Prop rule for attempting to do so.

>They may not be revised (r19)

R19 says proposals can be revised; it doesn't say that other things can't be.  R18, after all, says that anything not regulated is permissible; if there's nothing that talks about revising Charter Props, that suggests it's permitted.

And even if they can't be, so what?  That just means the proposer had better get it right the first time, and the Charter Prop is more likely to get voted down if e doesn't.  There's nothing that says we can't have non-revisable objects.

>**They are not processed, nor do their actions take effect**, nor may they
>be vetoed, nor do they cause dimension changes to their proponents (r32)

Charter Props don't contain actions.  They contain provisions and limitations for actions.  Which is why your Let's Get Rich club just doesn't work.  As to not being veto-able and not changing proponents' dimensions, "That's not a bug, it's a feature."  The Charter Prop rule explicitly states dimensions aren't changed.

As for not being "processed" like a proposal, so what?  R631 says a Club exists when a player makes a Charter Prop and it's voted on; being voted on implies a process that ties it in with the following sentence, which determines whether or not the Charter Prop passes.  That the Charter Prop isn't "processed" by the Administrator as are proposals doesn't keep the Club from existing when the proper number of votes are cast for it.

>They need not be displayed for public review (r211)

R16 -- If they're not posted to the public forum, they don't happen.  That kinda displays them for public review.

>They may not be rectified by the admin to change 'day' to 'nday' (r257)

Then the proposer had better get it right the first time, no?  Or mean "day" if e says "day".

>They are not exempt from the Scarf's effects (r258)

Good thing I didn't have the Scarf when I proposed M-Tek, then.

>They may not modify the LOGAS (r260)

And why, precisely, should they?

>
>There are other things Charter Props are excluded from, but the important
>thing is that their actions do not take effect. Thus, there is no M-Tek.
></CFJ>
>--
>Wonko

All in all, everything you've listed as being apparent deficiencies in Charter Props are in fact differences between Charter Props and proposals.  Okay, so differences exist.  I fail to see why this means Charter Props can't exist; after all, we have a rule that defines them as a game entity.

						Glotmorf