Subject: Proposal: The Stenotype

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 15:56:18 -0400

<begin proposal 'the stenotype'>

Rule 10.3 is repealed and replaced with a new rule 10.3 reading as follows:
10.3 The Speaker shall be in charge of tabulating votes and making any
random decisions that the rules do not ask another player to make.

Rule 10.5 is created in the group OFFICES, reading:
There is an office known as the Stenotype, whose posessor, the Stenographer,
is responsible for tracking all past judgements and for assigning Judges and
Appelate Justices.

Rule 11.2 is repealed and replaced with the a new rule 11.2 reading:
When a Call For Judgement is issued, the Stenographer shall randomly choose
a player, who shall be known as the Judge.

This proposal is destroyed.

A random player is named Stenographer.

<end proposal 'the stenotype'>

I vote FOR this proposal.

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 01:24:59 -0700

> <end proposal 'the stenotype'>

It appears to me that this is in violation of rule 1.1 .

-2 Rules (10.3, 11.2)
-1 Proposal (this one)
+3 Rules (10.3, 11.2, 10.5)
+1 Office
--------------
+1 Net increase of things.

I suggest resubmitting and destroy another proposal ("Proposal 2" is probably a
good bet since it can't pass anyway)

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 09:00:16 -0400

>good bet since it can't pass anyway)

My intent had been that the proposal destroys two rules and one proposal,
and then creates three rules. A new rule then declares an office to exist,
and the proposal declares that its posessor is chosen at random. If it turns
out it doesn't work that way, I will try your suggestion. But first, let's
check. I issue the following Call For Judgement:

When a proposal creates a rule which declares a Thing to exist, the proposal
is not seen as directly creating that Thing for the purposes of the First
Sacred Law.

And now, a random judge. Surprisingly, it is Dr Ducker!

---

From: Doctor Ducker <drduck@u...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 01:03:31 -0700

Craig wrote:
>
> I issue the following Call For Judgement:
> 

I Judge this Call for Judgement to FALSE.

The sole purpose of the action which has instigated this Call for Judgement is
to create a singular new Thing (The office of the Stenotype), therefore its
creation would be a direct result of the passing of the proposal containing said
action. If the action in question had specified a conditional, even one that
was satisfied at the time of the containing proposals passage, then the creation
of the office would not have been a direct result of the proposals passage. 
Even something as simple as:
"
Rule 10.5 is created in the group OFFICES, reading:
At the time of this rules creation, a new office known as the Stenotype is
created, whose possessor, the Stenographer, is responsible for tracking all past
judgements and for assigning Judges and Appelate Justices.
"

This would also separate the office from its creating rule for SSL purposes. 
But, be careful with needing to modify the office later, 10.5 should not be
destroyed and re-created with the same initial phrase, as that would create a
second Stenotype, rather, a new rule would need to be added with the appropriate
modifications contained within it.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 09:45:49 -0400

>I Judge this Call for Judgement to FALSE.

I appeal. Surprise surprise.

---

From: "Craig" <ragnarok@p...>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 10:11:05 -0400

>I appeal. Surprise surprise.

By the way, the appelate justices are Cassie, bd, and unlin_e.