Dan Marsh on 6 May 2002 18:52:25 -0000

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

Re: [nbo] Ratification and Proposal Sorenson.2

>From: JillSorens@aol.com
>Proposal Sorenson.2
>Amend A2.6 "No Rule may penalize a Player or Players by name." to read "A 
>rule may neither penalize nor benefit a Player or Players specifically by 
>name, association, or any other uniquely identifying characteristic."
>This is intended to be a Law.

Is it your intent to both amend this rule, and change its status from 
Article to Law?  This isn't clear, but my bigger worry is that I don't think 
we have procedures in place to transmute a law at all.  (I could be 
mistaken; I don't have the ruleset to hand.)

I vote AGAINST this proposal for another reason: if a law, when passed, 
applies to only one person, that person is uniquely identified.  I don't 
want to constrain ourselves from writing a rule that, for example, subtracts 
five points each Monday from the player with the most points.  If it weren't 
for this, I'd probably vote PRESENT (or simply abstain); I agree with 
David's thought that we SHOULD be allowed to reward a player by name.


MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 

[-- brought to you by notbob-official@nomic.net --]
[- http://ddickens.pepperdine.edu/nomic/ for now -]
[----- please, remember to trim the quotes -------]