Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: The Daily Recognizer (Wednesday afternoon)

["David E. Smith" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Wonko wrote:

> > About "randomly" in Rule 127: My change was superceded by another change. :)
>
> But yours was the last to occur... What could have superceded it?

I'm gonna try to reconstruct this from memory: p659 (my proposal) passed,
and its changes were implemented. Then it was pointed out to me that I'd
mis-counted the votes on p642, and thus I implemented its changes. Since I
can't rewrite history, even if it is to my benefit, that's just how things
worked out. (It's arguably for the better this way anyhow.)

> As Glotmorf has insisted, Charter Props are only 'like' normal props. They
> are not, apparently, actual proposals. Therefore, the fact that one of my
> five proposals was not actually a proposal means that I only have 4
> proposals, and can still make another.

They look an awful lot like proposals to me... I'm not aware of anything
in the rules that say Charter Props are exempt from Bandwidth Rationing.

...dave "founding member of the 'Vote No On p685' Coalition"