On Mon, 2009-03-16 at 16:39 +0000, Alex Smith wrote:
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> was using the mechanism specified in rule 2223, rather than the
> mechanism specified in the rule created by proposal 6130.", barring
> Murphy.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> failed because it was ambiguous which of two mechanisms were used to do
> the amendment.", barring Murphy.
>
> I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy's recent attempt to cause
> Rule 2223 to amend itself to read 'This rule intentionally left blank'
> failed because it attempted to claim indirect authority from the
> non-existent Rule 6130.", barring Murphy.
>
> Arguments:
> Ambiguous actions are normally taken to fail. I'm not sure whether the
> action Murphy tried was ambiguous enough to cause it to fail, but it
> certainly isn't completely clear-cut. Rule changes are held to a higher
> standard, as is shown by this quote from rule 105:
> {{{
> Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes
> that change to be void and without effect.
> }}}
H. CotC Murphy: you have less than a day left to assign these, and they
aren't listed in your database anywhere. Especially as proposal 6159 is
pending, this is pretty urgent; otherwise, I'll have to try to exploit
the possible dictatorship before its existence is ruled on, which will
make unclarity matters a lot worse than they already are. (Could some
people vote AGAINST it, to prevent it passing? That's the other
possibility to prevent problems here.)
--
ais523
