Re: [s-d] [s-b] My votes (finally!)

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think it's necessary to use a self-repealing rule; it should
in principle be possible for a passed proposal to order someone to
take an action.

I'm on the fence about whether p177 should be interpreted to create an
obligation.  Not only could the wording itself be a problem, but
there's also the issue that proposals take effect at an instant when,
IMO, all offices are vacant.  There is no Ambassador at the instant
the proposal's effects happen, so ordering the Ambassador to do
something might be impossible.

Of course, we could use common sense and make the incoming Ambassador
take any actions demanded of the office while it was vacant, but it's
probably best for such a mechanism to be explicit.

On Nov 14, 2007 11:44 AM, Mike McGann <mike.mcgann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 11:29 AM, Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > 177: Proper Notification (Hose)
> > Against. Proposals that use "shall" like this have no effect.
>
> Are you saying that since it doesn't change any game state, the net
> result of this passing would be nothing? I guess the correct way would
> have been to create a rule that self-repealed after doing what was
> intended? But then again, I don't think there is anything preventing
> the Ambassador from doing it anyway.
>
> - Hose
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
Geoffrey Spear
http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss