[spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Wonko takes Action

[Wonko <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoth Glotmorf,

>> Finally, I do intend to continue with my CFI that I couldn't call myself
>> 'Yoda'. One of the factors involved in the WBE series of CFIs was the
>> question of whether Glotmorf legally could create WBE, given that the rules
>> were trying to use the name for another object. But the WBE series was
>> saturated with other issues, such as whether a rule could be a charter, so
>> the issue of naming was hard to pinpoint. So I tried to change my name in
>> order to create an event that could be CFI'd based *solely* on the issue I
>> wanted addressed, and wouldn't be influenced by any sort of judicial bias
>> because it made no difference.
> 
> I fully agree that it would be illegal for you to change your name to Yoda.
> But I don't think that was a real issue with WBE...

Your logic regarding WBE:
"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."

My logic regarding my name change:
"The rule referred to something in existence called Yoda.  At the time the
rule was implemented, there wasn't anything in existence called Yoda,
therefore the rule that referred to Yoda was a do-nothing.  The reference to
a nonexistent Yoda didn't cause a Yoda to exist, since the rule was in
conflict with the Immunity Idol rule, which forbid Gremlins to be created
without certain conditions being met, and those conditions were not met.

Therefore there was no Yoda in existence when I change my name to Yoda.  No
conflict."

Do you see the similarity? :)

As far as I can see, it's exactly the same issue. I've relinquished all
claim to WBE, but that doesn't mean I've changed my mind on this issue. I'd
really like some sort of precedent to be established, because I can really
see this going either way.

> I was really hoping to not see a zillion CFIs related to It, since It really
> isn't worth the attention.
> 
> Which reminds me...I create the following M-Tek club prop:
> 
> {{ _Enough of It Already!_
> 
> Repeal Rule 1148.
> 
> }}

You could add, "Destroy all CFI's involving IT", or "Judge 'em all
REFUSED"... though I hope that will happen anyway.

>> I remember now why I always hated contrary vote bonuses.
> 
> That was your cinquain prop, wasn't it? :)

Not me. I thought it was Rob, but I could be wrong...

-- 
Wonko

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