Ed Murphy on Sat, 3 Apr 2010 20:12:04 -0700 (MST)

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

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

coppro wrote:

> I call for inquiry on the following statement: "A Refresh Proposal can 
> cause a Rule Change."
> Arguments: There is no definition of taking effect, so the ordinary 
> definition of taking affect applies to Refresh Proposals, which means 
> that they go and change the game state. However, there is no explicit 
> text indicating that Refresh Proposals change the rules, and so Rule 22 
> may prevent them from changing the rules. While it is clear that the 
> Refresh Proposal made sure that it is David, I do not know whether the 
> Refresh Proposal amended Rule 10.

Gratuitous arguments:

Rule 22 explicitly permits the changing the rules as implicitly allowed
by other rules.  Such implicit allowance is used for both adopted
proposals (Rule 17 section G: "the effects specified in the proposal
occur") and adopted Refresh Proposals (Rule 0: "the Refresh Proposal ...
takes effect").

Even if you believe that the ability of proposals to change the rules
is broken or may be broken, the ability of Refresh Proposals to change
the rules is protected by the first paragraph of Rule 0.
spoon-discuss mailing list