On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 21:37 -0500, Warrigal wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Alex Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > I call for judgement on the statement "Rule 2211 is a proposal." > > > > Arguments: the precedent of the famous CFJ 1656 implies that rule 2211 > > is a proposal (it states that anything matching the definition of the > > first paragraph of rule 106 is a proposal, and rule 2211 is "making > > other explicit changes to the gamestate" by platonically flipping castes > > to Alpha every month). I'm wondering if that precedent ought to be > > overturned; for one thing, it implies that proposals are trivially > > capable of being amended, otherwise rule 2211 couldn't be amended, and > > yet it has been in the past. > > The Word of the Day is "lacquer". Therefore, by changing the Word of > the Day, one changes the word "lacquer". The Word of the Day changes > every day. Therefore, the word "lacquer" changes every day.
Voting power is equal to a player's Caste (possibly reduced by Rests). Voting power can be increased. Therefore, Caste can be increased. Hmm... there are probably far more than two interpretations of what's going on, just as in the previous one-hit wonders scam. I think it may be a good step to identify what exactly they are. At this point, I'm more curious to see whether the escalation worked, rather than eager to prove that it worked. I like scams, but I don't like trying to convince people that scams worked when they blatantly didn't. As for this one, I don't know; I still don't see any obvious reason why a rule couldn't amend a proposal's text, but am prepared to be argued otherwise, if the arguments are good enough. -- ais523
