2008/8/12 Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Word of advice: If you want this to work, make this power 3.1, enact a > Rule (power 3.1) that says "Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of > power 3.1". *Then* repeal Rule 101, then repeal the power 3.1 Rule > (all in the same proposal). > > Otherwise it's trivial to claim that repealing Rule 101 removes rights, > and R101 has precedence over the current rules governing rules repeal. > > -Goethe
Oh, shoulda thought of that. I retract my proposal "Repeal Rule 101!" Proposal: Repeal Rule 101! Adoption index: 3. Interest index: 1. [Before we start, let me please justify this. Rule 101 is broken. Firstly, we are on a game played via computers. Really, we have no inherent rights at all. (I'm aware of the "society" view. I personally think it's silly, but I can understand it. Even so, let's continue.) Additionally, there isn't really that much reason to stop some of the "rights" there being abridged - e.g. (iii), (vii). ALREADY TRIED is already in the CFJ system, so it's kind of duplication (and any non-ALREADY TRIED judgement for something already tried will probably be appealed anyway.) Finally, (vi). The distributor can ban someone from the lists. Yet, precedent has it that when an action would "violate" Rule 101 it just doesn't happen. Therefore, the person would be banned and unable to participate in the fora, and yet (vi) says that no, that's impossible, they CAN participate in them. It makes no sense.] Add a rule titled "Our Helpful Assistant" (power=3.1): [[Rule 101 CAN be repealed by a Proposal of power 3.1.]] Repeal rule 101. Repeal the rule titled "Our Helpful Assistant".
