Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted proposals are useless.

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:58 PM, James Baxter <jebaxter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:13:28 -0400
>> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Hm. I can't find any indication that non-enacted     proposals are useless.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM, M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > I object to that amendment, if that is possible. This is for the reason that that action causes what would, in one of the old Rulesets,
>>
>> You're welcome to raise an objection, but the rules don't make it a
>> dependent action, so I doubt your objection does anything.
>>
>> > be known as a Dictatorship, at least if the Players wish to avoid carrying out actions on the LOGAS.
>>
>> And? What would be the point of a scam that didn't do things people
>> might not prefer to see happen?
>>
>> (Also, getting a Kick in the Ass is a really very minor consequence;
>> it's hardly a proper dictatorship.)
>
> Also, Kicks in the Ass require the Registrar to recognize them so your dictatorship needs my support. I'm going to wait for the CFI to
> be judged before I do anything about this.

This is also true. Really, it would be the wimpiest dictatorship in
the history of nomic dictatorships.

 - Rule 700
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss