Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 22 VOTING RESULTS

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 9/19/02 at 9:20 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Except it will fail. For the same reason Uin's old "I and the judge of this
>> proposal can change the gamestate at will" CFI failed. Regardless of how
>> it's judged. CFI's can't contradict something which is true.
> 
> Theoretically, CFIs can *define* what's true.
> 
> Let's try it a bit differently...
> 
> I create the following CFI:
> 
> Statement: Player stocks allegedly in existence prior to the creation of Rule
> 946/3 do not in fact exist.
> 
> Analysis: Rule 946/3, subsection C.2, dictates the process whereby player
> stocks are created and destroyed.  This effectively regulates the existence of
> what is currently known as player stocks.  As this process was not followed to
> create any player stocks prior to the existence of Rule 946/3, no player
> stocks could be in existence as of the creation of Rule 946/3.

That's a violation of the retroactivity clause - r946/3 wasn't in effect
when I bought the stock, thus it doesn't apply to stock created beforehand.

-- 
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss