Greg Ritter on 11 Jan 2002 11:07:37 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again

At 12:42 PM 1/10/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>> Hypothetical situation:
>> I submit four proposals.  Someone forgets to count them.  All four
>> adopted and enacted.
>Cannot happen. We may *think* they've all been adopted and enacted, but
we'd be
>wrong. Just as if the admin changed all the rules to "banana" - *our
records* might
>say that, but the *actual rules* wouldn't.

No, it does happen.  Under the statute of limitations, if no one noted
the discrepancy and submitted a CFJ, those changes to the game state
would be regarded as legal once the statute of limitations expired.  The
rules and game state are changed -- actually changed -- until someone
CFJs and a ruling is made that invalidates the changes.

But in that case, the game state would not have been changed by the lack of a CFJ, but rather the game state would have been changed by the Statute of Limitations rule which codified the erroneous records into the game state, thus making them part of the game state.

Again a real life example: if a criminal is not convicted within the statute of limitations for his crime, then while the crime is not erased from history, for all intents and purposes the judicial and legislative systems must behave as if it had been. In effect, the error has been codified by the inaction.

Conceptually, that's what a statute of limitations is: the resolution of a mistake by codifying it as part of the current state of affairs.

In any event, I'll grant that there are cases where only the records
need to be changed, to match the actual game state (e.g. your banana
example).  But there are others where changes have actually taken place,
and must be reversed.

Yup. So what?

I guess reversing actions could be a violation of rule 17/0 (which is problematic in a lot of ways, I think).