Re: [spoon-discuss] Things wrong with "Junior G-Men"

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/2/02 at 10:00 PM Wonko wrote:

>Quoth Glotmorf,
>
>> On 7/2/02 at 8:44 PM Wonko wrote:
>>
>>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>>>
>>>> On 7/1/02 at 10:25 PM Wonko wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Quoth Glotmorf,
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/30/02 at 2:56 AM David E. Smith wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fourth, even if the other listed members could assent to membership,
>>> and
>>>>>>> could make proposals, they couldn't vote (their attempt to do so
>>> being a
>>>>>>> society rule, which defers to game rule 294). (This argument is a
>bit
>>>>>>> specious, but the others should make up for it.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The attempt of the members of the Junior G-Men to vote is not a
>society
>>>>> rule.
>>>>>> It is a requirement under Rule 578, subsection F: "All Members of a
>>>>> Society
>>>>>> auto-vote "yes" on any proposal the Society submits."  That means the
>>>>> members
>>>>>> of the Junior G-Men are specifically allowed by the rules to vote.
>>> Even
>>>>> if
>>>>>> you interpret "these rules" to mean the text of Rule 294, Rule 578
>>>>> subsection
>>>>>> F has a Chutzpah of 2, and therefore takes precedence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sorry, where does it say that sections can have Chutzpahs that
>>> differ
>>>>> from their parent rule's?
>>>>
>>>> Rule 497:
>>>>
>>>> "If multiple subsections of a rule conflict with another rule, only
>those
>>>> subsections with a Chutzpah higher than the conflicting rule will take
>>>> priority over the conflicting rule. If multiple subsections of a rule
>>> conflict
>>>> with each other, the subsection with the highest Chutzpah takes
>>> precedence;
>>>> otherwise, normal precedence rules are followed."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rule 33:
>>>
>>> "In the event of a conflict between two or more rules, the rule with the
>>> highest Chutzpah takes precedence."
>>>
>>> Rule 33 has a lower number than rule 497; it therefore supercedes it.
>>
>> Rules 33 and 497 are not in conflict.  Rule 33 talks about an entire rule
>> conflicting with another; Rule 497 talks about subsections of a rule
>> conflicting with another rule, where different subsections of the rule
>have
>> different Chutzpahs.  Two different cases, two different rules.
>>
>
>They conflict in this case - a subsection of one rule contradicts a
>different rule. Rule 33 states that the subsection defers, because a
>subsection is part of its parent rule, so it's a conflict between to rules,
>and the subsection's parent defers to the other rule. Rule 497 says
>otherwise - that the subsection can have an independant Chutzpah and thus
>supercedes the other rule.
>
>So:
>
>By r33, r294 supercedes r578 in its entirety.
>By r497, sF of r578 supercedes r294.
>
>This is a conflict.
>
>By r33, r33 supercedes r497 in the event of a conflict.
>
>Thus, r294 supercedes r578 in its entirety.

Rule 33 "states" nothing of the kind.  It talks about entire rules conflicting.  Rule 497 talks about pieces of rules conflicting.  Rule 33 applies when rules that have no pieces that warrant independent consideration conflict.  Rule 497 applies when rules that have pieces that warrant independent consideration (such as being distinct subsections and/or having their own chutzpahs) conflict.  Two separate cases, two separate rules.  No conflict between them.

Had Rule 578 been all of a piece, with no declared subsections and no separate chutzpahs assigned to same, Rule 33 would apply.  Since that is not the case, Rule 497 is clearly the more applicable rule.

That two separate rules exist to handle two different cases does not imply conflict between them.  Otherwise, the Administrator would not be able to make proposals because there's a different rule that talks about proposals being made.  Points cannot be awarded by bonus boxes because points are already being awarded by proposal passage.  If either Rule 33 or Rule 497 said there was no other way to compare two rules, there would be a conflict; as it is, Rules 33 and 497 act together to handle multiple cases, as opposed to conflicting over the same case.

						Glotmorf


_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss