spoon-discuss: A judgement and a proposal for the price of one!

["Tyler Crosby" <nomicvoice0@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Statement of CFJ 316:
> 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.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>
> 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, because of the absence of a rule that 
> controls those other circumstances.
>
> Yet CFJ 133, which stated that a player had been successful in setting eir 
> score to a certain amount, was judged true; the analysis included the 
> following:
>
> "If uin had only 'set his score' (as I did) the score would be overridden 
> as soon as score was defined to be the number of points. If he had 
> 'transferred points' it would be regulated by the rules and thus illegal.
>
> "But he did neither. He simply _created_ the points, **which was not 
> regulated by the rules at all.**" [[Emphasis added.]]
>
> 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, because of 
> the absence of a rule that controls those other circumstances.
>
> These two judgments are contradictory; therefore one of them must be
> invalid.

Unfortunately, I must render a Judgement of UNDECIDED, because of the clear 
fact that it's really confusing.  However, I would urge Glotmorf (or someone 
else)to either make a proposal which clears this whole mess up (I was about 
to, but I realized that I didn't know what the heck it needed to say), or 
for him to resubmit this CFJ and hope for a Judge who can make up eir mind a 
bit easier.

Now, some other business:

I declare my gender to be male, and I place myself on The Grid at (6,4).
And,

{{
Replace the entirety of the text of proposal 306/0, retitling it _Wait, can 
I take that back?_, with the following:

{{
Create a new rule entitled _I Call A Redo!_ with the following -0- delimited 
text:

-0-
At any point between it's recognition by the Administrator and the beginning 
of the voting period during which it is to be voted on, the proponent of a 
proposal may make an overhaul.  An overhaul is considered to be a change to 
the proposal which renders it to be an entirely new proposal for the 
purposes of the changes it will render to the game state and to the rules.  
If a change is found to be an overhaul by the proponent, the Administrator, 
or by a Judgement on a CFJ pertaining to the question, the proponent shall 
lose 5 points.  If the change is found to be an overhaul through any method 
other than by the Administrator, the Administrator may override the decision 
and declare it not to be an overhaul.
-0-
{*PointsLost Proposals, 2*}

Also, add "making an overhaul in each of two subsequent nweeks" to the 
LOGAS.
}}
[[This is to keep people from doing what I just did.  Of course, I did it so 
I could make it so I couldn't anymore, but I'm not going to think about that 
anymore as it is headache inducing.  Thinking things through the first time 
is actually a good thing, people... if we have to do that more often, 
perhaps we won't get into as much trouble.  I also plan to re-work recinding 
CFJ's to reflect this school of thought, look for that later.]]
}}

-0-Thus Spake The Voice-0- (at length)

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com