Re: [s-d] Massive Gamestate Recalculation 2, the Loose Interpretation version

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

0x44 wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:45:25 -0800, Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> The rules don't require voters to identify proposals in any particular
>> fashion, just in some fashion. 
> 
> The Rules do oblige the Chairman to identify proposals in a particular
> fashion though, so your point is moot. "The Chairman is obligated to assign
> a new Proposal Number that is greater than all previously used Proposal
> Numbers to each proposal with a number of null. "

That only breaks things if the rules declare proposals somehow
ineffective unless properly numbered.  Otherwise, "I vote for
<number>" still works as an obvious gloss for "I vote for the
current proposal allegedly numbered <number>".  (Assuming that
the only possible source of ambiguity is ancient proposals; if
two current proposals were mistakenly labeled with the same
number, then yes, "I vote for <that number>" with no other
context would be ambiguous enough to be ineffective.)

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