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

[Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Cassie Bayer <kisse.bnomic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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...

Agreed. Although it doesn't matter; those Points of Order will never
be gathered because the State of Unrest ended (and I believe a new one
then began, although nobody's offered themself up for chairman duty).
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss