Re: [spoon-discuss] Ow.

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/29/03 at 10:09 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:

>> The mention of Rules and Proposals may be "simply for clarification",
>> but the presence of it in the rule text, as opposed to
>> comment-delimited, means it has the force of rule.  While there may in
>> fact be other instances of "text that should be set apart", the rule
>> doesn't give a clear general case for them; therefore, the examples
>> the rule provides are the only valid examples because there's
>> insufficient criteria to identify another valid example.
>
>"Text that should be set apart" is sufficient to imply that any body of
>text is valid; the use of 'such as' preceding the examples confirms
>this.
>
>I also point out a precedent: societal charters and philosophical
>mandates have both been accepted as valid uses of the brackets.
>
>> Except that the things you provide as examples aren't recognizable
>> actions on the public forum.  Assuming for a moment that the primary
>> purpose of the public forum is to post recognizable actions (never
>> mind a lot of the other damnfool stuff we use it for), the examining
>> of a public forum message should involve looking for things that can
>> be recognized as actions.  A proposal is recognizable.  A quote from
>> another Nomic is not.  Therefore, if one were to put a quote from
>> another Nomic on the public forum delimited by curly braces, it might
>> well be parsable as a proposal, and should be.
>
>The text posted to a public forum need not be an action; in fact, there
>is no way the ruleset can force it to be. We are permitted to send
>whatever we want to the public forum, and nothing states or implies
>that we should try to force whatever you say to be an action.

The ruleset can't force text on the public forum to be an action; however, part of the Administrator's job is to recognize valid actions on the public forum.  Therefore, if there is text there, it's eir job to figure out if it constitutes an action.  If it looks like a valid action, e must recognize it as such.  Doesn't matter if the text wasn't meant to be an action, or if it looks totally weird; it's not the Administrator's job to make that call. (I myself would have assumed the IT proposal was a joke.  I may disagree with what you propose, but I will defend to the death your right to propose it.)

>> We could simplify this discussion by taking it in a different
>> direction.  I have done this before.  It was recognized as a proposal
>> that creates a rule.  This establishes a precedent that suggests the
>> validity of subsequent similar action.
>
>I see precedent for simply stating something in brackets and assuming
>it is a prop. I see no precedent for doing the same within a prop and
>assuming it is a new rule. You yourself have used {{}} pairs for CFIs,
>society charters, philosophical mandates, and 2GC declarations, any of
>which could be created by a proposal. Your text is not specific enough
>to determine which of these was your intent.

Proposal 414, the first Nomilogue, that created the rules for both Literary Forms and Prose Forms.  Followed by Proposal 458 which created Dimensional Realms, P475 which created DimShips, P597 which created DimShip Guns and Armor, P723 which tried to create Barney, P861 which created Bondage, P996 which created Nomvivor, and P1022 which created Mining the Grid.

And those are just my prose props.

>>>> Wasn't there an old CFI to this effect?
>>>
>>> Not that I can see.
>>
>> I'll do some digging.  I know this argument has come up before.
>
>If it has, it's not in the database as a CFI.

Actually, it never came down to a CFJ...

On 2/27/02 at 11:01 PM Donald Whytock wrote:

>On 2/27/02 at 8:04 PM Eric Gerlach wrote:
>
>>At 07:48 PM 2002-02-27 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Say, doesn't the Nomilogue proposal need the words "Create the following
>>>rule" or something like that?
>>
>>Not according to "Standard delimeters" it doesn't.
>>
>>Bean
>
>"Elimination of Boilerplate," actually, combined with "Standard
>Delimiters."  Mind you, amendments to existing rules will be tricky, but I
>have a couple ideas.
>
>						Glotmorf

The original inquiry was yours.  Getting nostalgic and reviving old arguments?  Or getting senile and forgetting them? :)

						Glotmorf

-----
The Ivory Mini-Tower: a blog study in Social Technology.
http://ix.1sound.com/ivoryminitower

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