Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:43:07 +0000
Carl Muckenhoupt wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Admiral Jota wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Dylan O'Donnell wrote:
> > > Pointer-chasing [Psmith]:
> > > A proposal for one rule removal, and one new rule.
> > > Remove Rule 17.
> > >
> > > No individual rule may be changed after it's been added, except to
> > > amend references to specific rule numbers within it, or to remove it
> > > from the game, either of which can only be done by unanimous
> > > agreement.
> I'm still undecided about this.
The intention is to turn number-references into symbolic links rather
than hard links, to prevent having to delete-and-repropose all
referring rules whenever a rule is amended by deletion-and-reproposal.
A convenience, nothing more.
> I just want to comment on this new trend
> of compound proposals, which started with the Servant's Quarters proposal.
> My opinion is that nothing in the rules forbid it; if everything in a
> proposal is allowed to be done by unanimous consent, then the proposal as
> a whole can be decided by unanimous consent.
Yes, I was going to query Jota's use of it in SQ; but looked at Rule 10
again and noted that "a change" didn't necessarily mean an atomic change.
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Senseless property destruction has failed me, and so :
: I must resort to wackiness." :
: -- Mr Disease, "Triangle and Robert" :