Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: Prop change

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/13/02 at 4:52 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 5/13/02 at 4:36 PM Wonko wrote:
>>
>>> Quoth Ed Murphy,
>>>
>>>> "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/02 at 9:58 PM Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In prop 680, replathe the tectht delimited by @@@
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is ambiguous.  "@@@" appears six times in your message (though
>two
>>>>>> pairs out of those six overlap each other).
>>>>>
>>>>> Nine, if you count the opening statement.  You're not making the best
>>>>> possible first impression, guy...:)
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I haven't even started yet.  Wait till I grok the Rules enough to
>>>> start making my own Proposals.  :)
>>>>
>>>> More seriously:  Why is Rule 155 broken?  Gavin just mentioned a past
>>>> CFJ, but I wasn't here when it occurred.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It forbids proposals to discriminate between players depending on how
>they
>>> voted on a certain issue. The CFJ RePol refers to is an ancient one that
>>> decided that the effects of rules created by proposals do not count as
>>> effects of the proposal itself. Thus, r155 is broken because one can get
>>> around it simply by making a rule to do the counting for you.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Wonko
>>
>> Except that the current version of r155 says that rules that count votes
>are
>> an effect of the proposals that made them do that.  So r155 isn't
>currently
>> broken.  Though it doesn't exactly forbid proposals that make rules that
>count
>> votes; it just says that if one makes a rule that takes action based on
>vote
>> count, it doesn't actually take that action.
>>
>> Glotmorf
>>
>>
>Then Uin's proposal is not actually illegal; it's rule will simply have no
>effect. Except it's got Chutzpah 10. So it will anyway. And r155 is broken.
>
>It's broken anyway, 'cause you could simply add another layer - create a
>rule that creates a rule that creates a rule ... that discriminates based
>on
>voting.
>--
>Wonko

Adding layers doesn't make any difference.  The point is, even if you propose a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that makes a rule that sets up a mechanism to make a rule three nweeks from now, it's still a change to the ruleset that the proposal is making that will result in votes being counted.  If it's a rule that counts votes, and it's made by another rule, then it's a rule that's making a rule that counts votes.  Causality goes backward all the way to the proposal, because the proposal contains the entire mechanism.

And one could argue that a proposal that makes a rule, ad nauseum, is an attempt to circumvent the rules, and thus is a violation of r10.  Which also has a Chutzpah of 10 and is a lower number.

						Glotmorf