[Nomic02] Ratified: Ex Post Facto Repeal
Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:46:43 +0100
Adam Biltcliffe wrote:
> --On 12 June 2003 9:13 am +0100 Dylan O'Donnell <email@example.com>
> >(I'm open to correction, though; if I'm wrong, all that needs to
> >happen is that jwalrus votes Aye, and I post a second ratification.
> >One of my ratification posts will be a lie, but it won't particularly
> >matter which one.)
> Well, I should vote Aye, then; it rather seems as though the rule ought to
> have come into effect as soon as you ratified it whether you like it or
> not, but I suppose this is the point of ex post facto repeal.
It's either in effect now, or will be in effect one hour from my
reratification, depending on which of baf and me is correct. If I
don't make the repeal proposal for an hour, that means that it's valid
under both versions of reality, current and retconned.
> Also, I
> should extend the confusion by pointing out that the proposed rule uses the
> word 'action' for the superclass of things which must not have taken place
> contingent on the removed rule; by my reading ratification is not an
> action, although the rules are slightly sloppy in the use of the word prior
> to its definition in rule 63.
That's what I'm assuming; the question as I see it is whether the
addition of Rule 161 wioll haven be "unanimously agreed" under the
terms of Rule 6, not whether Rule 161 forbids its own adoption.
: Dylan O'Donnell http://www.spod-central.org/~psmith/ :
: "Any sufficiently arcane magic is indistinguishable from technology." :
: -- Lebling's Inversion of Clarke's Third Law :