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

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth David E. Smith,

> 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 About "randomly" in Rule 127: My change was superceded by another change.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 What could have superceded it?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.)

Proposals are processed in order. If your representation of the ruleset was
in error, that's fine, but it's a direct violation of the rules to implement
p642 after 659.

>> 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.

Well, Glotmorf says they're not proposals. If they aren't proposals, then
they must not count towards things that count proposals.

Personally, I agree that they should be proposals. But if that is indeed the
case, then it's perfectly legal for me to put in a Charter in my other
proposals to make them pass easily. Maybe I'll CFJ. But first I want to know
whether the judge is random or not :)

-- 
Wonko