Re: [s-d] [s-b] $wgLogo

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 10, 2006, at 12:57 PM, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> Hmm... I'm going to have to disagree. RFJ 6 is not about interpreting
>> the contents of a proposal, but whether the proposal fits the rules'
>> definition of a proposal. (Now, this statement of mine could  
>> certainly
>> have an RFJ submitted about it, since I might be wrong. But we'll go
>> on for now with this line of reasoning...)
>
> I find that a bit difficult to support.  The statement consisted of a
> single sentance, the subject of which was "the proposal titled...".

1) I believe the intent of the RFJ was indeed to question the  
interpretation of the rules. In particular, it was questioning  
whether the attempt to make the proposal was legal. In this sense it  
could be interpreted to constitute a valid RFJ under your definition.  
There is certainly great precedent for RFJing the state of the game  
in order to implicitly settle questions about the rules, and it  
generally provides more concrete and manageable statements than  
trying to phrase statements about the meanings of rules in abstract  
terms.

2) Regardless, your definition is incorrect. R2-5 asserts that an RFJ  
must contain a Statement, but does not place any restrictions on what  
that Statement may contain. While the rule does note that RFJs can  
only be issued when there is disagreement about the interpretation of  
the rules, it does not require that such RFJs pertain to this  
disagreement. Since you did not remark on this, and in fact rule as  
though my preceding claim were false, I claim that there did exist  
disagreement about the interpretation of the rules, and so RFJs could  
legally be submitted.

3) But regardless of both points, I agree with your judgment. The  
statement was "The proposal titled "populate $wgLogo" does not  
exist." If a proposal entitled "populate $wgLogo" exists, then the  
statement is obviously false. Otherwise, the statement refers to  
something that does not exist, and so is nonsensical. A more useable  
RFJ would have been "there is no proposal entitled 'populate $wgLogo'".

In response to the RFJ itself, R2-2 requires that each proposal has a  
list of changes to be made to the game; it does not require that this  
list be nonempty, nor that there be nothing in the proposal aside  
from this list, so I don't see anything wrong with the proposal  
except that it doesn't do anything.

Unless it's implicitly read as "Create a rule with the following  
text"; that used to be possible, too, and perhaps should be again.

-- 
Wonko

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