Re: spoon-discuss: CFJ: The clock...

[josh@xxxxxxxxx]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Jonathan Van Matre wrote:

> Thus we find ourselves in nweek 3 again, because the amendment took
> effect (as all amendments must under current rules) AFTER the end of
> nweek 3, and therefore AFTER the point at which the clock would have
> incremented.  Even if it had taken effect before 00:00:00 UTC (which it
> could not, since voting was still open), it would have incremented to
> nweek 3, nday 1, NOT nweek 4, nday 0.
> 
> Under Rule 17/0, which says "Events may occur only in the present, and
> may not alter the past." and  32/1, which notes that "Proposals may not
> take effect retroactively." this has the makings of a time paradox, and
> a violation of the rules.  Rule 204/0 may also apply, but as it has a
> higher rule number, rule 158 will take precedence over it.


I don't really see a conflict here.  Rules 17 and 32 are referring to
causing events to occur in the past that didn't occur.  Just because the
nweek is called nweek 3 doesn't mean that anything that happens this nweek
actually happened last nweek.  Just that we are calling the nweeks the
same thing.  Its merely a symantic issue, not a paradoxal issue.  

Just my thoughts, of course, I'm not the judge ;)

Fenrir