James Baxter on Fri, 2 Apr 2010 10:58:42 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 110 reassignment

> From: bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 11:46:40 -0500
> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 110 reassignment
> On Apr 2, 2010, at 11:32 AM, James Baxter wrote:
> > 
> >> From: bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:10:19 -0500
> >> To: spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Let's fix this game
> > 
> > [[However, I do not believe that any similarity between proposals and refresh proposals would affect the emergency. Rule 23 defines proposals but does not impose restrictions on how they may be used or give them the power to change the rules and gamestate. That power is provided at the end of two different mechanisms: the one described in rule 0 and the one described in rule 17. These mechanisms can easily run alongside each other (although I assume rule 0 would apply only to the subset of proposals called refresh proposals) so there is no conflict so it does not matter if refresh proposals are proposals.]] 	
> Again, if Refresh Proposals are not proposals they don't have the Chutzpah to alter the rules.

No rule states that chutzpah is needed to alter rules (chutzpah only affects precedence) and proposals don't have chutzpah (chutzpah is an attribute of rules). 		 	   		  
We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
spoon-discuss mailing list