Re: [s-d] [s-b] bah

[Cassie Bayer <kisse.bnomic@xxxxxxxxx>]

2009/2/17 Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> comex wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> I mean Approve as in ratify. If we're going to fiat start from a
> >> gamestate, let's at least make sure we all think it's the same one...
> >
> > Boring.  Resuming A would be much more fun, like old Agora...
>
> I would lean more toward teucer's B/Agora hybrid, if we're gonna change
> things around wholesale (basically 6E).
>
> FWIW, based on http://b.nomic.net/index.php/State_of_Unrest (last
> updated a little over a day ago), here's a summary of the Points of
> Order and their vote totals:
>
>  2/1 Kisse: "ratify 5E gamestate"
>  2/2 comex: "make us an Agoran protectorate"
>  4/2 0x44: "set *initial* rules to Agora's rules"
>  4/1 0x44: "re-enact rule 5E0"
>  2/4 Murphy: "ratify 5E rules"
>  6/0 Murphy: "ratify 5E players"
>  5/1 Murphy: "ratify 5E ministers"
>  5/1 Murphy: "ratify 5E consultations"
>  4/2 Murphy: "ratify 5E clock"
>  2/1 teucer: "set rules to a December 2001 ruleset"
>  4/1 Murphy: "ratify 5E rules with comment fix"
>  3/4 Kisse: "add Kisse to players with an imaginary win"
>  3/1 teucer: "enact B/Agora hybrid"
>  2/1 Kisse: "I vote = I submit a vote"
>  2/1 0x44: "enact RFC 2119 as a rule"
>  3/2 ehird: "ratify comment fix"
>
> Oh, but y'all are gonna love and/or hate this!  Rule 5E0, relevant
> excerpts:
>
>  A Point of Order may declare that it is Dependent on or Contradictory
>  to a previously submitted, but not yet discarded or selected Point of
>  Order.
>
> /* Thus, if it doesn't so declare, then it isn't. */
>
>  If a selected Point of Order is Contradictory to another selected
>  Point of Order, the Point of Order with the greater number of Yea
>  votes to Nay votes is selected, otherwise they are both discarded.
>
> /* So twelve out of the thirteen selected Points are discarded in pairs
> per "otherwise"!  But which one survives?  Note that teucer's B/Agora
> hybrid would have fixed this. */
>
> I become Paranoid.


Full legal precedence and linguistics holds that this sentence would be
parsed as:

"If a selected Point of Order is Contradictory to another selected Point of
Order, (the Point of Order with the greater number of Yea votes to Nay votes
is selected, otherwise they are both discarded.)"

The "otherwise" doesn't syntactically link to the "if" but rather "the point
of order with the greater number of Yea votes to Nay votes is selected".

This is by totally pedantic reading...
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss