[Spoon-business] CFI responses

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/3/02 at 8:21 PM Wonko wrote:

>I submit some CFIs:
>
>Statement: Wonko is the Boss of WBE.
>
>Defendant: Glotmorf
>
>Analysis:
>    Proposal 1001, as one of its actions, included 'Make Wonko the Boss of
>WBE". Although Glotmorf attempted to create eir own society entitled WBE,
>this was a violation of r2, as the names WBE, Wealthy Bastard Enterprises,
>and the Wealthy Bastard were all already in use.
>
>Therefore, Wonko is still the Bastard of WBE.

As defendent, I offer the following analysis:

The analysis above presupposes that Wonko became the Boss of WBE when eir proposal was implemented.  In fact, there was no WBE for Wonko to have been made the Boss of at the time that action was to have been performed.  The procedure Wonko followed to attempt to create a society was not a procedure that was permitted by the rules, as other procedures had been outlined and comprised the regulation for society creation.  The rule Wonko's proposal created was not sufficient to create a society, as a society is required to have a charter and the rule did not supply one.  Therefore, Wonko's proposal failed to create a WBE for em to then be made the Boss of.

Wonko has contended that the rule eir proposal created was in fact the charter for a WBE.  In fact, at no time, in either the proposal or the rule itself, was it stated that the rule or any portion of it was meant to be a society charter.  The proposal said it was creating a rule, and didn't mention a society or a charter.  The rule said a society existed, and that certain conditions applied to it, but at no time presented anything to serve as the society's charter.  Therefore, in no way did Wonko's proposal supply a charter for a WBE, and, since societies are required to have charters, thus was a society named WBE not created.

With an absence of a WBE, I was entitled to create a society called WBE, following the procedure dictated in Rule 578.  As this was a WBE that was not in existence when Wonko's proposal attempted to make em the Boss of WBE, Wonko was not made the Boss of my society.  Therefore, Wonko is not the Boss of the currently-existing WBE.

>Statement: A rule can also be a Society's Charter.
>
>Defendant: Glotmorf
>
>Analysis:
>    According to rule 578, __Societies__, a Societies Charter is a Game
>Document that contains a Society's public rules. If these rules are
>contained within an official Game Rule, then that Game Rule must be the
>Society's Charter.
>
>Also, as nothing forbids a document from doubling as a Rule and a Charter;
>therefore it is permissible by rule 18, __Permissibility of the
>Unprohibited__.

As defendent of this CFI, I offer the following analysis:

This statement depends entirely on how the proponent is defining the word "can".  If one is defining it to mean "the possibility exists, no matter how remote or how much work would be involved to bring it about", I would probably agree to the statement.

Recent history, however, has demonstrated that the proponent would define the word "can" to be a mandate, as in, "Players can vote" and "Players can make proposals".  It should be assumed, therefore, that the proponent's intent with the statement is to create a situation in which use of a rule as a society's charter may be imposed on the game, regardless of the nature of the rule or the situation in which it exists.  This I would strongly disagree with.

Addressing the proponent's analysis, it appears to be eir contention that the public rules for a society are an entity in and of themselves, and may manifest themselves anywhere, even without being identified as such.  I do not argue against the possibility that a rule can specify that a society's charter consists of a particular block of text, but that is different from claiming the entire rule is in fact the society's charter.  I do not argue against the possibility that a rule can say its entire text comprises the charter for a society, but that is different from claiming that that can be assumed if the rule fails to say it is the case.

I do argue that when it is never officially stated that a particular block of text comprises a society's charter, and that when a rule that someone claims is a society's charter is a mixture of regulations that apply to the society and regulations that extend beyond the scope of the society -- as, for example, in the case of Rule 1073 -- then it cannot be assumed that that rule is the society's charter, and in fact can be assumed that it is not.

Whether or not Rule 18 allows the possibility of a rule being a society's charter to exist, that cannot be assumed to be the case if it is not explicitly stated.

						Glotmorf


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