Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Friday night)

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/02 at 4:51 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/20/02 at 4:31 PM Wonko wrote:
>>
>>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>>>
>>>> On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 05:56:36AM +0000, David E. Smith wrote:
>>>>> Glotmorf's Holy Order of Points CFI is 708, assigned (randomly -- I'll
>>>>> only handpick the judges if it's really important IMO) to Rob.
>>>>
>>>> That's convenient. I judge TRUE.
>>>
>>> I appeal CFI 708, citing CFJ 254 as precedent. [[That was the one where
>>> Bean
>>> ruled that the effects of rules created by proposals did not count as
>>> effects of the proposals themselves.]]
>>>
>>> BTW, r127 still has an occurrence of the word 'randomly' in it, which
>ought
>>> to have been removed by the admin's previous proposal.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>>
>> Rule 155, which CFJ 254 addresses, was modified by Proposal 265, which
>came
>> after the CFJ.  Therefore, Rule 155 is more current than CFJ 254, so CFJ
>254
>> isn't a valid precedent to address r155's current validity.
>
>Sure it is. R155 still forbids proposals to have effects that descrinate
>based on voting. The HOOP prop creates a rule. The rule is not an effect of
>the proposal. Therefore, the same logic still applies and the HOOP is
>legal.
>And I'm richer.
>--
>Wonko

R155 also says:

"If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate effects which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then those rules generate no effects based on the way players vote on that particular proposal."

It says this in R155/1.  The CFJ was on R155/0, which didn't say this.  CFJ 254 doesn't apply to R155/1, then, because R155/1 is a significantly different rule.

						Glotmorf