Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 110 reassignment

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:32 AM, James Baxter wrote:

> 
>> From: bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:10:19 -0500
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's fix this game
>> 
>> If you're still the Oracle, CFI 110 has not been answered. The CFI in question needs to be answered before we can know that the resolution of the emergency decision fixed the gamestate.
>> 
> 
> Wooble has failed to answer CFI 110 within 7 days so he is hereby recused and I assign CFI 110 to coppro.
> 
> 
> [[However, I do not believe that any similarity between proposals and refresh proposals would affect the emergency. Rule 23 defines proposals but does not impose restrictions on how they may be used or give them the power to change the rules and gamestate. That power is provided at the end of two different mechanisms: the one described in rule 0 and the one described in rule 17. These mechanisms can easily run alongside each other (although I assume rule 0 would apply only to the subset of proposals called refresh proposals) so there is no conflict so it does not matter if refresh proposals are proposals.]] 	

Again, if Refresh Proposals are not proposals they don't have the Chutzpah to alter the rules.

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