RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2/4/02 at 12:05 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Okay...so from what I understand, two nweeks ago
>> you posted an Action to the public forum that you
>> were repealing r10?  And it is your opinion that,
>> since there was no CFJ to argue this Action, r129
>> makes this Action legal, and therefore r10 is now
>> repealed?
>>
>More or less (it wouldn't make any difference if there had been a CFJ, as
>the action would still be made legal by r129, but close enough).
>
>> Okay...Well, since r10 is still in the rules list, that
>> means the Administrator didn't see, or ignored,
>> your Action
>>
>Yes.
>
>> and didn't update the rule set to match your Action.
>>
>No. He failed to update *his* *records* to match my action. The *actual*
>rule set doesn't depend on him to update it. It's quite possible for his
>records to be in error. Of course, my revision of r129 would have made it
>work as you describe...

Actually, the actual rule set depends on him to update it, as it's not marked that it's dependent on anyone else to update it, and r25 says all game duties not assigned by the Rules to other players are his responsibility.  While it is not his responsibility to determine what the rules mean, or what they "say", he is responsible for determining what text the rule set is composed of.  In theory, he could ignore the changes the proposals make, and as long as he's not CFJ'd, the text of the rule set that exists as a result is in fact the legal rule set.

You could, of course, CFJ the Administrator now, since, as you pointed out, there's no Statute of Limitations on Administrator actions.  Whereupon he'd probably argue that, even though your action then may be legal now, it wasn't legal then, and therefore he was taking the correct course of action by ignoring you.  And while it's possible that no one can CFJ you now for your action then, if the Judge rules that the Administrator was correct in ignoring you then, the rule set that resulted from the Administrator's action has the force of law now.

I'd certainly be willing to rule that way...:)

>
>> Since his Action, which was failing to act upon your
>> Action, was also two nweeks ago, r129 says his
>> Action can't be CFJ'd either, and therefore his Action
>> is legal too.
>>
>No. Rule 129 refers only to player actions, and the admin is (quite
>definite that he's) not a player. His actions are not made legal, and can
>still be CFJed.
>
>> And therefore, the current rule set listed on the website,
>> which includes the not-repealed r10, is a reflection of his
>> legal action, and consequently the legal state of the rule set.
>>
>No. It's a reflection of how the admin claims the rule set is - nothing
>more. If he changed all the rules in his records to say "monkey", would
>that mean that that was what the rules actually said? Well, perhaps you'd
>say so, but I certainly wouldn't.

Gee...if he did that, someone would have to CFJ him.  Wouldn't it be something if someone ruled in his favor? :)

>
>> Don't know why I didn't see that earlier...
>>
>Because it's flawed on so many levels? ;-)

Must be because our hallucinations are incompatible. :)

>
>uin.

						Glotmorf