RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: Ballot, nweek 21

["Harrison, Andrew" <andy.harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jörg Rathlev [mailto:joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> 
> I'd generally agree with you, but in this case, there was 
> actually a very good reason why we needed a new (but 
> temporary, thus the auto-repeal provision) rule: We need to 
> have a way to destroy the old debts,but the banker is not 
> permitted to simply order the payment of a debt without first 
> having a motion for payment made by the tax collector and 
> adopted by voting. My proposed rule allows the banker to do this.

Oh, I see. Doesn't your proposal get rid of the Motion for Payment?
 
> I don't think a "Do X" proposal is legal if it proposes to do 
> something that's not permitted by the rules.

Yeah, I suppose so. But you could always change the rules in the proposal
;-)

--
The Kid