Daniel Lepage on 30 Jun 2003 16:59:01 -0000


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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Ow. 


On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 12:49  AM, Glotmorf wrote:


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 all have the right to propose something; that doesn't mean that everything we send to the PF must be a proposal. I agree that if something looks like a valid action, Dave should recognize it as such. I don't agree that what you posted looked like a valid action. 


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.
Some of those are legitimate because they contain multiple rules; the "proposing multiple rules" clause makes that legal. Others are only legal because the statute of limitations has lapsed.
Curiously enough, if you had put another rule in your fake prop, it would have been legal under the multiple rules clause. But if it's a single rule, you have to have the same name on the prop and the rule. Kinda funny how that works.
Of course, the Statute works just fine for these things. If Dave recognizes it as a proposal, I'm not gonna complain. But it is, technically, against the rules. 


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? :)
The exchange you quote was in reference to Nomilogue #1; it created multiple rules and thus was legal under the multiple rules clause. 

Single rules are not so legalized.

--
Wonko

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