Wonko on 26 Mar 2002 21:40:10 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Proosal: Exclusive doors 

Quoth Gavin Doig,

> <proosal>
> <title>Exclusive doors.</title>
> <body>
> [[I missed the deadline to appeal this. Therefore, a little hoop-jumping is
> required.]]
> Create a new rule, numbered 123 and with a chutzpah of 2 [[so it takes
> precedence over r126]], named "Appeal of CFJ 447.", with the following
> @@@-delimited text:
> @@@
> The Judgement on CFJ 447 is overturned. The CFJ records will be updated to
> indicate the judgement was overturned, and if necessary, the game state is
> modified so that play can continue as if CFJ 447 was originally judged
> "Undecided". This rule then repeals itself.
> [[Analysis:
> The initiator's reasoning was:
> "As the Administrator pointed out, declarations of Respect are not Proposals
> for the purpose of scoring. Ergo, there's an established custom in the rules
> that declarations of respect shouldn't earn the author a reward."
> The judge's was:
> "What Scoff! said, for one. Also, if we let votes for respect count as votes
> towards the Token of Proposals, then we'd have respect cropping up all over
> the place, as people try to grab yes votes. And that would get
> annoying, fast."
> 
> Firstly, the fact that declarations of respect don't count for scoring, and
> therefore they shouldn't count for the ToP, is akin to saying that because
> they don't count for style, they shouldn't count for scoring. In fact, it's
> even weaker, because they are explicitly defined not to count for scoring,
> indicating that they are in other ways (including scoring) identical to normal
> proosals.
> 
> Secondly, while I may agree with the idea that respect cropping up all over
> the place would be annoying, it should have absolutely no place in a Judge's
> reasoning. Saying "if this is true, bad things will happen" is the argument
> from adverse consequences, and that's a fallacy. If you don't like it, by all
> means change it, but don't try and make it go away by shutting your eyes to
> it.
> ]]
> @@@
> [[This is just what R404 does for an appeal.]]

Except doesn't r404 give the case to someone else? If it just kills it
straight out, we've got some revising to do.

Don't get me wrong; I agree with your interpretation - the rules said
nothing about counting yes votes.

But let's observe proper ettiquette when brutally suppressing someone else's
Judgment.

--Wonko

"If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to
dance."
- George Bernard Shaw