spoon-discuss: Rule-numbering as a demigodlike power

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/11/02 at 12:56 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>The problem is that, since things have to be recognised / ignored in the
>order they were sent to the list, none of the admin's recognitions since
>he missed those proosals (the ones incorrectly numbered as 457 and 458)
>are valid. And that means that no actions taken by any players since then
>are valid. They won't be until he not only renumbers them, but also goes
>back and recognises them all after having recognised 457 and 458 with
>their correct numbers. And this has to be done every time he makes a
>mistake. I think he'll also have to recognise and ignore (respectively) my
>point giving and taking, and redo everything since then, since he only
>recognised the CFJ, not the point transfers it referred to.
>
>uin.

Okay...I looked over the rules, and, as much as I hate to say it, I can't find anything that says identification numbers have to be consecutive integers.  They just have to be unique.  In theory, then, the Administrator could assign a totally random number from 1 to a gogol to each newly recognized object, as long as he didn't re-use any of them.  So he is not obligated to renumber the proposals, and therefore my two proposals are not numbered incorrectly.

What's more, there's nothing that requires him to number rules sequentially either.

So all this means the Administrator currently has the power to determine what order proposals' votes are evaluated in, meaning if one proposal might prevent another from happening it could be engineered to work that way; it also means he can determine rule precedence by assigning arbitrary numbers to rules.

It also means he can determine which proposal gets et by the PIG.

						Glotmorf