RE: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: A future proposal

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I'm not so sure about that.  After all, Uncle Psy's
> proposal is already dead.
>
Well... no. Your attempt fails on several levels:

> See...when I posted that objection about its
> passage, I was following r129/2, in that I was
> objecting to Mr. A's statement that the
> proposal passed. 
>
This statement contradicts itself. You said "I object to the passage of this proposal", not "I object to this statement". You were *not* objecting to his statement about the passage of the proosal, you were objecting to the passage of the proosal. Granted, that's easily fixed...

> R129/2 doesn't say that said objection is an
> action, or even that it has to go to a public
> forum, but must be a message sent to all
> players; there's been enough activity on
> spoon-discuss that I'm fairly confident all
> players got my message.
>
...but this has some problems too. While it doesn't *say* that the objection is an action, nor do most of our other rules, and I think that game custom is that any action we take in the game is, in fact, an action. Which would mean that the clock being stopped, and Wonko's (rather broken) version of rule 17 both prevent your action from working (it's certainly a "game-related action", as per rule 3). And even if that were not the case...

> And therefore, in about eighteen days, when the
> game state is adjusted to reflect statements made
> by Mr. A two days ago, said adjustment won't
> include the passage and implementation of Uncle
> Psy's proposal, because I objected to that part of
> the statement.
>
...while this would be fine (had you actually made the objection)... 

> At which point, r129/2 will not have been implemented,
> r129/1 which was brought about by Wonko's passed
> proposal will be in place, and Uncle Psy will be short
> by as many points as Mr. A claimed e received.  All
> in accordance with r129/2.  
>
...it falls over again here. Rule 129/2 doesn't say that things don't happen unless it legalises them; it merely says when it does legalise them. Rule 17 already defines when things take place, so rule 129/2 was created at the end of the voting period, as per r32/8. To claim that things only happen when rule 129/2 legalises them is blatantly ridiculous, as it could never have come into existence were that the case. All your objection, had it occurred, would have done would have been to cause "the usual methods" to apply. Since, under those methods, r129/2 was created, objecting to something which is already legal has no effect.

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a