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

[Sean Hunt <rideau3@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/02/2010 09:32 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.]] 		 	   		

I find CFI 110 ("Refresh Proposals are Proposals.") to be False. The 
definition of Refresh proposal is provided in Rule 0: "A Refresh 
Proposal is a fixed body of text clearly marked as a Refresh Proposal 
and submitted to a Public Forum by a PEP." The only thing that would 
imply that a Refresh Propsoal is a Proposal is its name, however, given 
that the definition of Refresh Proposal is complete, there is no reason 
to consider them Proposals.

I call for inquiry on the following statement: "A Refresh Proposal can 
cause a Rule Change."

Arguments: There is no definition of taking effect, so the ordinary 
definition of taking affect applies to Refresh Proposals, which means 
that they go and change the game state. However, there is no explicit 
text indicating that Refresh Proposals change the rules, and so Rule 22 
may prevent them from changing the rules. While it is clear that the 
Refresh Proposal made sure that it is David, I do not know whether the 
Refresh Proposal amended Rule 10.

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