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

[bd <bdonlan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tuesday 14 May 2002 08:30 am, you wrote:
> > >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.
>
> Well... no. That's sort of the point - actions taken by a rule made by a
> proosal are not actions of that proosal, by that CFJ. Exactly the same
> applies - actions taken by a rule created by a rule created by a proosal
> are not actions of the proosal. It's the same thing, just one step removed.
> Now, it might be possible to rewrite rule 155 such that that isn't the
> case, but then chutzpah 10 would just nuke it anyway.

Sounds like a job for a CFJ.

> > 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.
>
> One could argue that, but one would be silly and wrong. As explained above,
> the proosal wouldn't be doing anything except creating a rule. The fact
> that that rule then overrules another rule is irrelevant (and falls under
> the domain of precedence).
>
> Rule 155 doesn't work, and given that a proosal can alter the rules, rule
> 155 can *never* work - any sufficiently convoluted proosal will be able to
> override it. (Excepting the discovery of the long-sought Immutable Rule, a
> beast for which we have as yet no evidence).

Hmm...