Re: [s-d] [s-b] Antonio made me do it (Wooble's Refresh Proposal)

[Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx>]

William Berard wrote:
> On 11/30/07, Antonio Dolcetta <antonio.dolcetta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>   
>> Geoffrey Spear wrote:
>>     
>>> I retract my promise that my last Refresh Proposal was the last one I'd
>>>       
>> submit.
>>     
>>> I retract any Refresh Proposals I've made in the past, and submit the
>>> one below.  Screw you, causality!
>>>
>>> I intend to compile a ballot containing Revised Refresh Proposals and
>>> not containing those that are Retracted.
>>>
>>> If the RP that wins doesn't retroactively make this legal, I intend to
>>> submit an ordinary Proposal that would do so by temporarily suspending
>>> Rule 3-1 and retroactively making it legal.  In any case, I believe
>>> it's in the Spirit of Rule 0, which explicitly states that Refresh
>>> Proposals should be discussed in the Emergency Forum that such
>>> Discussion should be able to lead to changes in such discussed
>>> proposals.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> This is... terrible
>> Might as well vote for the proposal that repeals all rules and start
>> over fresh than go this way.
>>     
>
>
>
> I beg to differ. Wooble had no other choice than to amend and alter the rule
> of non-retroactivity, since you pointed out that revising and retracting RP
> is technically prohibited.
>   

I understand the reasons behind it, but stop a second and think what 
would happen if a proposal like that actually passed, do you seriously 
think we would correctly sort out what happens and not go back to an 
emergency a few ndays after it had passed ? I admire the imagination put 
to use in this RP, but it's just too complicated and unstable.

> I have to point out that the case you make to argue that no one should be
> able to revise nor retract RPs sis based on the assumption that since it is
> not explicitely permitted in Rule 0, then it is prohibited. This very point
> is being discussed and addressed in many RPs, as, in the current ruleset,
> there is no such "Monopoly" ( or is it Prohibition?) rule.
>   

It better be prohibited, if it is not, by the same reasoning any player 
could revise any arbitrary RP.
This whole argument about permissibility is pointless and just old.
I say we declare consultation 45 overturned and stop this emergency. No 
need to fix anything via emergency.



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