Re: [s-d] [s-b] Blatant Bribery

["Roger Hicks" <pidgepot@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 17, 2007 9:15 AM, 0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Roger Hicks wrote:
> > I will gladly divide and pay all my macks to the players who vote FOR
> > proposal 214 (sequential rule numbering), which is on the ballot again
> > this week, if that proposal passes.
> >
> > BobTHJ
> > _______________________________________________
> > spoon-business mailing list
> > spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business
> >
> Why are you so opposed to sectional rule numbering?

I'm not opposed to organizing rules by section, in fact this is a very
good idea, and one which my proposal allows for. However, this does
not have to effect rule numbers. Our current system creates problems
when rules are re-numbered because:
1. Wiki-pages conflict
2. creates confusion when referring to rules by number.
3. Ministers can change rule numbers to manipulate proposals, such as
the attempt to repeal Rule 1-1.

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