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

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Three things ­ First of all, this does nothing unless it goes to
spoon-business. Secondly, I like being able to overhaul! I don't want to
lose points for it! And thirdly, I think you mean to use 'or' instead of
'and' in the phrase 'the changes it will render to the game state and to the
rules' because I could completely change a proposal that doesn't change the
rules at all and it wouldn't be an overhaul because it's still the same in
terms of the changes it will make to the rules [[0 = 0]].


Quoth Tyler Crosby,

> 
> 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
> 





-- 
Wonko
Aut inveniam viam aut faciam.