Daniel Lepage on 7 Mar 2003 00:16:04 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: Self-reference 


On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 10:19  PM, Glotmorf wrote:


--- Adam Hill <adamahill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I still think that's cheesy.  But r1299 isn't in
conflict with r12.  Even if it was, it would be
considered a specific prohibition with regards to

the

general permission in r12: You can have all the
self-modifying changes you want; you just can't

have

THAT one.

-- Glotmorf


I respectfully disagree, sir.  Mostly because of one
sentence in Rule 12: "Even Rule Changes that amend
or repeal their own authority are permissible."

To me, that sentence is allowing a Proposal to amend
its own authority (i.e., essentially create a Rule)
and repeal its own authority (i.e., essentially
repeal that same Rule) in the same Prop.  Precisely
what 1299 forbids.

Would you be more inclined to support the prop if it
removed only the one sentence from Rule 12?


Rather than answer your question directly, I'm going
to give you a research assignment: Where in the rules
does it say what version of the rules is in use when a
proposal is being implemented?  And is there anything
in that, or like that, or associated with that, that
says the rules a proposal is implemented under can
change halfway through the implementation?

I'm wondering now if the rules that were in place at
the beginning of the implementation of a proposal are
the same rules that are in place all the way through
said implementation.  If they are, r1299 is redundant,
and all those
change-the-rules-with-the-proposal-to-make-the-proposal-work
proposals were illegal.
I would rule against that interpretation, if it were CFI'd. For one thing, this would mean that a proposal to, say, turn the Council of Elders into a three-person elected committee, which happened to have a bit at the end which put some people into the three Council Seats, would go all wonky and bubble over and die, as at the time it would be implemented, there wouldn't be any such seats to fill, nor would it be possible to refer to the eligibility requirements set forth beforehand, as they would not yet be implemented.
Actions in a proposal happen in the order they're given, with each one's validity being determined by the ruleset as of that point in the proposal.
Personally, I think that proposals should have the power to do anything (which they do, but sometimes with extraneous work); I don't think we should ever need to make so-called "cheesy rule changes", and indeed, they're usually unnecessary, except in those few cases where people force them to be used (*cough*Overlord*cough*). 
--
Wonko

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