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

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Nice try, but you forget the last sentence of your
> 129/2: "This rule takes precedence over all other
> rules."
>
I don't forget it; it's not relevant. Precedence only applies when there's conflict - it doesn't mean that a higher precedence rule completely disregards everything in a lower one. Unless rule 129 says something which contradicts an earlier rule, precedence doesn't come into it.

> That means it takes precedence over r16, which
> says actions may only be taken in public fora. 
>
That's not what rule 16 says. It says "Actions may be taken only in public Fora, unless otherwise specified in the Rules." So, although rule 129 says they may be taken elsewhere, there's no conflict here, and hence precedence is irrelevant.

> It takes precedence over r17, which says actions have
> to be recognized by the administrator.
>
It would do, except that it doesn't say that objections need not be recognised, so there's no conflict, and hence precedence is irrelevant.

> It takes precedence over r3, which says actions can't
> be taken when the clock is off.
>
Again, there's no conflict, and hence precedence is irrelevant.

> It even takes precedence over r204, which says a rule
> can't affect events prior to its adoption. 
>
Again, there's no conflict, as it doesn't try to.

> And if "game custom" is considered an unwritten rule,
> r129/2 takes precedence over that too.
>
It's not, though. It's considered to be (wait for it) the customs of the game. And anyway, *all* rules take precedence over it.

> In addition, the phrasing of the rule suggests that it is
> the rule's intent to not follow game custom.
>
Uh... what?

> Most rules, after all, talk about actions taken, messages
> posted to the public forum, etc., while r129/2 specifically
> talks about messages sent to all players, as opposed to
> actions or forum postings.
>
Yes, it does. That's because it's doing something quite different from most rules (which is itself true of most rules). So what? Just because it does something that's not customary doesn't mean that the things it does do shouldn't be interepreted in accordance with game custom.

> R129/2 doesn't even say my objection has to be
> recognized under the existing system for rendering
> judgments, which would involve a forum posting; it merely
> requires that I object.
>
It has nothing to do with judgments. Where did that come from?

> As for "the usual methods of determining the game state",
> there's no definition of exactly what those are.
>
Deliberately so.

> My  dictionary defines "usual" as meaning "commonly
> met with or observed in experience." 
>
Uh-huh.

> The methods we've most commonly met with or observed
> in experience are the administrator announcing that a
> proposal is recognized, the administrator announcing the
> vote tally, the administrator announcing the passage of a
> given proposal, and the administrator updating the website's
> rule list.  That's the usual method.
>
That's one usual method. You're forgetting consensus, and of course the CFJ. Don't agree that CFJs do that? Then you can CFJ it, thus neatly proving that they do. ;-)

> If I object to any of these statements by the administrator,
> the usual method becomes simultaneously illegal and
> required.
>
Now we're back to your fallacy that actions aren't legal unless they're made legal by rule 129. Aside from the fact that the admin is only one of the usual methods (and one that can be and has been overriden by CFJs), which means it's not required, it's not illegal. Rule 129 doesn't make what the admin said illegal if you object; it merely doesn't make it legal if it wasn't. If it was legal anyway, your objection has no effect on that.

> So let's just make it official, as per your r129/2:

> I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 passed.
>
So we count the votes, and find that it did.

> I object to the statement by the administrator that p377 received six affirmative votes.
>
Same.

> What the hell...I object to the statement by the administrator
> that p377 was recognized and part of the ballot.
>
So we check, and find that the admin did in fact recognise it (as per the relevant rules, not by means of r129), and so it was.

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