Re: [s-d] [s-b] BobTHJ's Refresh Proposal

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 26, 2007 3:17 PM, William P. Berard
<william.berard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As such, correct me If I am wrong, but I think it is logically
> equivalent to  "everything that is mentioned in the rules, is
> prohibited unless it is explicitely permitted." Basically a cut down
> version of the strict "unless explicitely permitted, everything is
> prohibited", which only applies to things regulated, that is, mentioned
> in the rules.

Exactly
>
>
> Although I think your proposal will certainly clear things up, It would
> still require a lot of "common sense" things to be explicitely
> permitted. for example the recent debate about consultation neeeding to
> be asked as a question. The rules clearly state that. However
> consultation 006 http://b.nomic.net/index.php/Consultations/0006 states
> that consultation can be worded as statement.
>
> How would this work under your proposal. Does a Judgement qualifies as
> regulation? if so, don't we go back into the loophole which enabled a
> Priest to use his answer to a Consultation to build a Doomsday
> device... Here again, we lack a proper Oricularity system where
> Judgement only become part of the ruleset once submitted to public
> vote...
>
See my revised version (which I am typing now). Note that this isn't a
new issue, it is just one that has recently come to light (in this
nomic anyway).

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