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

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> 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.

No, rule 33 talks about rules conflicting. Period. No 'entire rules' are
mentioned - just 'rules'. And the fact that part of a rule contradicts
another rule means that rule 33 takes control.

> 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.

Where does Rule 33 mention special allowances being made for subsectioned
rules? Answer: It doesn't. Therefore, Rule 33 does exactly what it says -
deal with conflicts between rules, regardless of whether or not the rules
are subsectioned.

> 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.

But they don't handle seperate cases - Rule 33 handles all conflicts between
rules, and Rule 497 handles all conflicts between subsectioned rules. They
therefore conflict, as conflicts between subsectioned rules are covered by
both.

-- 
Wonko

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