Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Ruling: CFJ272

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:42 PM 2002-01-18 -0500, you wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2002 at 09:02:16PM -0500, Alex Truelsen wrote:
> > CFJ 272 (Judge: Baron von Skippy)
> > CFJ by Bean
> >
> > Non-player entities are allowed to vote.
> >
> > Analysis: The ruling on CFJ 251 specifies that "No rule specifies how a
> > non-player entity should vote." Thus there is no rule forbidding the 
> voting
> > of non-player entities. Thus by Rule 18, they may.
>
> I didn't even notithe thith ÞFJ.
>
> The proponent could have quoted my whole analythith, as I had already
> thtated why I believed Rule 18 didn't apply - voting is regulated by the
> rules.
>
> I really don't think Rule 18, or its equivalent in other rulethetth, was
> meant to be a blanket "do whatever the heck you want unleth ith nailed
> down really hard" clause. Thith is the firtht Nomic where I've theen
> thuch a liberal interpretation.
>
> Although ith not a proposal, I declare TheeEffJay 272 to be in Bad Thtyle.

Well, it kindof went hand in hand with the *other* CFJ I submitted.  Well, 
point is that I thought Rule 18 had a different interpretation, and lacking 
any other means of appeal, I went with the CFJ.  However, I appear to be in 
the minority on this issue.  Now, this isn't an excuse for my lack of 
style... but my lack of style has always been a given :)

Bean