Eric Gerlach on 20 Jan 2002 23:22:45 -0000

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

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

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

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 :)