Re: [spoon-discuss] Refresh Prop again

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 10/11/02 at 2:21 PM Wonko wrote:
>> 
>> Which CFI's would you be speaking of? I admit that the explicit definition
>> of a *non-proposal* method is enought to implicitly exclude other,
>> unmentioned *non-proposal* methods, but since the rules declare that the
>> effects of a proposal take place, then those effects will take place unless
>> a rule which takes precedence SPECIFICALLY says that a proposal can't do
>> that. All G.1. did was outline one way it could be done; it didn't say no
>> other ways were possible.
> 
> So far I've got CFIs 305, 340 and 688.  I keep thinking there were more...

Those all are different. Those dealt with people arbitrarily taking
regulated actions. But uin's awarding of a win, Scoff!'s forced forfeiture,
and uin's Champagne drinking all would have been perfectly legal *if* they
had been proposed and passed. The thing that made them illegal was that they
weren't proposals, they were just actions, and such actions were not
permitted. The making of proposals IS permitted, and so the arguments used
in the CFI's you mentioned do not apply.

> I've also seen an awful lot of CFIs with no judgments.  I think we need to
> decide if CFIs expire, in accordance with, say, the Statute of Limitations.
> Though some of them I'd've liked to have seen rulings on...

They get recused, right?

-- 
Wonko

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