Re: [s-d] [s-b] Murphy's refresh proto v2.0

["Geoffrey Spear" <geoffspear@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 10, 2007 11:03 PM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm unsure about repealing the changes to rule 1-10. We obviously need a
> way of adjudicating invalid actions, and the Consultation system as
> defined is too slow.
>
> Repealing the rule 1-10 amendment opens a huge loophole within rule
> 1-18. If we repeal both the amendment AND rule 1-18, we're sort of back
> where we started at the beginning of /last/ emergency.

I believe that repealing 1-18, putting 1-10 back where it was, then
changing p211 (a proposal that would have passed unanimously but for a
single Abstainer) to Won would solve the problem.  There's no reason
to allow everything that's not explicitly prohibited, at least in
regard to Game Objects (the rules already explicitly say that they
don't govern External Forces outside the game, so the "I need
permission to brush my teeth" objection doesn't hold water).  And
there's certainly no reason to legislate "I say I do, therefore I do
(as long as no one says I don't within a day)"

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