Re: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: NWEEK 15 RESULTS

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/20/02 at 7:12 AM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> Proposal 678/0 (Remember me, remember me.) (The Reality Police):
>> AFF: bd, Naath, The Reality Police, The Voice, Wonko
>> NEG: Baron von Skippy, Glotmorf, Rob, Wild Card
>> Counts: (5-4-0-0). Measure passes.
>> Measure is vetoed by the Administrator (if Bandwidth Rationing is
>> repealed, you'll be looking for a new Admin. I like the rest of it, but
>> the "repeal rule 212" part simply will not happen).
>>
>I believe that the above veto, and indeed every other veto, fails. Rule 32
>says that a proosal which is vetoed by the admin is considered to have
>failed. However, the Admin did not veto P678 until he released the voting
>results. P678 is considered to have passed when "after the votes on all
>proposals voted on during that voting period have been counted". It's a
>little ambiguous as to whether that is when they are platonically counted
>by the rules, or mundanely counted by the Admin, but either way his veto
>came afterwards, and so cannot change the results (or at least cannot
>change the changes made to the rules made by the proosal - it might still
>be "deemed to have failed" afterwards), as that would be a violation of
>R204.
>
>uin.

R33: "Whenever one section of a rule conflicts with another section of the same rule, the section which appears later in the rule takes precedence over the earlier section."

The two rule sections, "after the votes on all proposals voted on..." and the veto stuff, are both in r32.  The veto stuff comes after the other one.

						Glotmorf