Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Sunday morning)

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/12/02 at 1:53 PM Glotmorf wrote:

>On 5/12/02 at 9:57 AM Wonko wrote:
>
>>Quoth David E. Smith,
>>
>>
>>> "Let's get some points!" is 676/1. (Since it creates something other
>than
>>> a Charter - i.e. the rule "The Other Exploitation," I still don't think
>>it
>>> counts as a Charter Prop.
>>
>>The rule requires the Charter Prop to contain a Charter; it doesn't say it
>>can't contain anything else. The *Charter* must consist of what the rule
>>says; the Charter Prop has no such restrictions.
>>
>>--
>>Wonko
>
>Well, now, you see, that's why I made that other change last nweek, that
>changed "rule" to "charter".  Now there's nothing in r631 that says a
>Charter Prop makes rules, except for those that club members have to obey.
>
>We had this argument last nweek.  R631 doesn't say a Charter Prop is a
>proposal; it only says a Charter Prop is "like a normal prop. in that it's
>added to the nweek ballot and voted on."  It doesn't say that a Charter
>Prop is like a normal prop in that it has rule-changing authority.  And
>therefore, according to the Default Case, it doesn't have rule-changing
>authority.  You can put a rule change into a Charter Prop, but the rule
>change can't be implemented.
>
>I did call them hole plugs, guy...:)
>
>						Glotmorf

Also, the current version of p676 only claims it's a Charter Prop in a comment.  And comments still don't have the Force of Rule.  So at the moment p676 still isn't a Charter Prop.

						Glotmorf