Re: [s-d] [s-b] Blatant Bribery

["Jamie Dallaire" <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

Well, I myself quite like the idea of persistent rule numbering, and indeed
did vote for BobTHJ's proposal the first time around. I intend to vote for
it again. If he wishes to give me money for it, so be it :-D

Billy Pilgrim

On Dec 17, 2007 11:26 AM, Roger Hicks <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Dec 17, 2007 9:15 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Roger Hicks wrote:
> > > I will gladly divide and pay all my macks to the players who vote FOR
> > > proposal 214 (sequential rule numbering), which is on the ballot again
> > > this week, if that proposal passes.
> > >
> > > BobTHJ
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > spoon-business mailing list
> > > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> > >
> > Why are you so opposed to sectional rule numbering?
>
> I'm not opposed to organizing rules by section, in fact this is a very
> good idea, and one which my proposal allows for. However, this does
> not have to effect rule numbers. Our current system creates problems
> when rules are re-numbered because:
> 1. Wiki-pages conflict
> 2. creates confusion when referring to rules by number.
> 3. Ministers can change rule numbers to manipulate proposals, such as
> the attempt to repeal Rule 1-1.
>
> BobTHJ
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss