Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ: Double Standard

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/20/02 at 2:45 AM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 01:34:55AM -0500, Donald Whytock wrote:
>> Statement:
>>
>> CFJ 251, that non-player entities' votes should count since they are not
>regulated as players, was judged false; the analysis included the
>following:
>>
>> "Rule 30, which reads "Each Player may cast exactly one vote on each
>proposal on any given Ballot.", serves to regulate the action of voting.
>Since voting is thus regulated by the rules, non-player entities may only
>vote as specified by the rules. No rule specifies how a non-player entity
>should vote."
>>
>> In other words, if there is a rule that mentions how a given action is
>performed under certain circumstances, said action cannot be performed
>under any other circumstances.
>>
>> Yet, CFJ 249, that certain proposals that didn't use the Standard
>Delimiters from rule 217, was also judged false; the analysis included the
>following:
>>
>> "Rule 217 merely defines the standard delimeters; nowhere does it
>require that they are used."
>>
>> In other words, just because there is a rule that mentions how a given
>action is performed under certain circumstances, said action is not
>prevented from being performed under any other circumstances.
>>
>> These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
>invalid.
>
>I'm going to go against the 'encouragement' and lose the lithp for thith
>methage.
>
>Your CFJ is nearly convincing, but your analogy breaks down. The problem
>is that you are paraphrasing the rules and making them say something
>else in the process.
>
>Rule 217 doesn't describe how any action is performed; it simply states
>the meaning of certain character sequences.
>
>I quote:
> The character sequences '{{' and '}}' (without the single quotes) serve
> to delimit a proposal or a rule; in any Action where they appear, they
> are considered to mark the beginning and end, respectively, of a
> proposal or rule.
>
>So the appropriate analogy is this:
>
>Since voting is regulated, "Players may vote" implies "Non-players may
>not vote".
>
>Since standard delimiters are regulated, "'{{' and '}}' delimit
>proposals and rules in Actions where they appear" implies "'{{' and '}}'
>do not delimit proposals and rules in Actions where they do not appear".
>Which should be patently obvious.
>
>--
>Rob Speer

Yes, but everything we do in the business forum is an Action.  And currently Actions are the only way to submit a proposal and/or rule change.  Therefore, if the standard delimiters describe the beginnings and endings of proposals and rules, lack of them suggests the absence of proposals and rules, in the same way that lack of status as a player suggests the absence of privilege to cast votes.

Basically, we've got two policies in active use at the moment: (1) the existence of a rule regulating a condition restricts actions to circumstances described in the rule; (2) the existence of a rule regulating a condition doesn't apply to circumstances not described in the rule.  I've seen multiple instances of arguments that go in the direction of each of these.  I'd like it to be established, officially, that one or the other is in fact the controlling policy.

						Glotmorf