Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Ruling on CFI 1098

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

> On 10/20/02 at 1:46 PM Wonko wrote:
> 
>> Quoth Jeremy "Athena" Cook,
>> 
>>> 
>>> Statement: Wonko is the Boss of WBE.
>>> 
>>> Defendant: Glotmorf
>>> 
>>> Analysis:
>>> 
>>> Proposal 1001, as one of its actions, included 'Make Wonko the Boss of
>>> WBE". Although Glotmorf attempted to create eir own society entitled WBE,
>>> this was a violation of r2, as the names WBE, Wealthy Bastard
>> Enterprises,
>>> and the Wealthy Bastard were all already in use.
>>> 
>>> Therefore, Wonko is still the Bastard of WBE.
>>> 
>>> Defendant's Brief:
>>> 
>>> The analysis above presupposes that Wonko became the Boss of WBE when eir
>>> proposal was implemented. In fact, there was no WBE for Wonko to have
>> been
>>> made the Boss of at the time that action was to have been performed. The
>>> procedure Wonko followed to attempt to create a society was not a
>>> procedure that was permitted by the rules, as other procedures had been
>>> outlined and comprised the regulation for society creation. The rule
>>> Wonko's proposal created was not sufficient to create a society, as a
>>> society is required to have a charter and the rule did not supply one.
>>> Therefore, Wonko's proposal failed to create a WBE for em to then be made
>>> the Boss of.
>>> 
>>> Wonko has contended that the rule eir proposal created was in fact the
>>> charter for a WBE. In fact, at no time, in either the proposal or the
>> rule
>>> itself, was it stated that the rule or any portion of it was meant to be
>> a
>>> society charter. The proposal said it was creating a rule, and didn't
>>> mention a society or a charter. The rule said a society existed, and that
>>> certain conditions applied to it, but at no time presented anything to
>>> serve as the society's charter. Therefore, in no way did Wonko's proposal
>>> supply a charter for a WBE, and, since societies are required to have
>>> charters, thus was a society named WBE not created.
>>> 
>>> With an absence of a WBE, I was entitled to create a society called WBE,
>>> following the procedure dictated in Rule 578. As this was a WBE that was
>>> not in existence when Wonko's proposal attempted to make em the Boss of
>>> WBE, Wonko was not made the Boss of my society. Therefore, Wonko is not
>>> the Boss of the currently-existing WBE.
>>> 
>>> Ruling: FALSE
>>> Analysis: Proposal 1001's actions did not create WBE, as they did not
>>> follow procedure for a society to be created, so Glotmorf was indeed
>>> entitled to create a society called "WBE", with em has the Boss. While
>>> Proposal 1001 stated "Make Wonko Boss of WBE", no WBE existed as a
>>> Society, so this action was not possible. Thus, Glotmorf's Society did
>> not
>>> contradict any uniquely identifying names rules. Wonko's later attempt to
>>> create a society called "WBE" was in violation of uniquely identify names
>>> rules, since Glotmorf had already created WBE, so nothing happened as a
>>> result of that action.
>> 
>> I appeal this CFI.
>> 
>> My analysis:
>> Even if WBE was not created proposal 1001, the name WBE was still used
>> as an attempt to define an object. Whether or not the object was actually
>> created is irrelevant - the name "WBE" still couldn't be a uniquely
>> identifying name for Glotmorf's society, as the name was already defined to
>> refer to something.
>> However, since Glotmorf was kind enough to remove the part of the rule
>> that made WBE a taken name, my societal creation was then perfectly legal,
>> and I am now the Wealthy Bastard.
> 
> The rule referred to something in existence called WBE.  At the time the rule
> was implemented, there wasn't anything in existence called WBE, therefore the
> rule that referred to WBE was a do-nothing.  The reference to a nonexistent
> WBE didn't cause a WBE to exist, since the rule was in conflict with rule 578,
> which detailed how societies were created, and the rule didn't follow that
> regulated method.
> 
> Therefore there was no WBE in existence when I created a WBE.  No conflict.

Whether it was extant doesn't matter; the name was already defined in the
rules. The fact that another rule prevented the object so defined from
actually coming into existance doesn't change the fact that the string "WBE"
was in use.

-- 
Wonko

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