Re: [spoon-discuss] Refresh Prop again

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/12/02 at 12:51 PM Wonko wrote:

>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.

The making of proposals is permitted, yes, but it's also regulated.  Every rule that talks about doing something with proposals serves to further regulate proposal making.  Therefore, while proposals in general are permitted, proposals regarding societies in particular are regulated, so that if one is going to have a proposal regarding societies it must adhere to the regulated form.

But hey, we've had this argument before.  Or, I suppose, it's still the same one.

See you in the polling station...

						Glotmorf


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