Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Benjamin Schultz < ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Benjamin Schultz < > ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, omd wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz >>> wrote: >>> > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a >>> Rule? >>> >>> Might be Messy Statements. But note that >>> >>> The ID number of the new rule cannot >>> be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so >>> specify is null and void. >>> >> >> Interesting. I'll work up an amendment to R591, just to enable >> reenactment. For a nomic should tolerate reenacting a repealed rule. >> >> -- >> OscarMeyr >> > > Oops. s/R591/R105 > > I was looking at the wrong search. > > -- > OscarMeyr > Proto-proposal Reenacting Rules: Power 3 Amend R105 by inserting the following after the paragraph labelled "(b)": (c) reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent rule number may be reenacted with the same ID number and the next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule is reenacted with the same text it had when it was most recently repealed. If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is null and void. [Reenact the rule, THEN change its purpose -- don't do both at once.] and renumbering the existing labels (c) through (e) accordingly. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Benjamin Schultz < ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, omd wrote: > >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz >> wrote: >> > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a >> Rule? >> >> Might be Messy Statements. But note that >> >> The ID number of the new rule cannot >> be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so >> specify is null and void. >> > > Interesting. I'll work up an amendment to R591, just to enable > reenactment. For a nomic should tolerate reenacting a repealed rule. > > -- > OscarMeyr > Oops. s/R591/R105 I was looking at the wrong search. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 3:12 PM, omd wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: > > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a Rule? > > Might be Messy Statements. But note that > > The ID number of the new rule cannot > be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so > specify is null and void. > Interesting. I'll work up an amendment to R591, just to enable reenactment. For a nomic should tolerate reenacting a repealed rule. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
The uncertainty about what "re-enact" means in the specific mechanics is probably sufficient ambiguity in rule-change specification to cause the whole thing to fail. Just a guess... Also note: didn't say what version of the rule was being re-enacted... On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Joe Stefek wrote: > I would question whether it is, in fact, a new rule. It seems to me, at a > cursory glance, that this is an existing, but repealed, rule, and this > instrument > is proposing to repeal the repeal. > --aperfectring > > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM, omd wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz >wrote: > > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a > Rule? > > Might be Messy Statements. But note that > > The ID number of the new rule cannot > be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so > specify is null and void. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
I would question whether it is, in fact, a new rule. It seems to me, at a cursory glance, that this is an existing, but repealed, rule, and this instrument is proposing to repeal the repeal. --aperfectring On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 12:12 PM, omd wrote: > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz > wrote: > > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a Rule? > > Might be Messy Statements. But note that > > The ID number of the new rule cannot > be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so > specify is null and void. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a Rule? Might be Messy Statements. But note that The ID number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > TITLE: THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A > > REENACT RULE 1729 WITH ITS MOST RECENT TEXT. INCREASE ITS MODIFICATION > NUMBER. > > > > > > > > TITLE: THE INSANE REPEALS, PART B > > IF "THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A" PASSED, THEN: > > * REPEAL ALL POWER=1, EVEN-NUMBERED RULES. > > * OSCARMEYR WINS UNDER RULE 1729 > > Note that you can make these secret votes by moving them to the > Star Chamber (R2409). -G. > > > Thanks, I'll check that Rule out. Part of the exercise is -- when was the last time Agora reenacted a Rule? -- OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emptiness
On Wed, 25 Sep 2013, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > TITLE: THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A > REENACT RULE 1729 WITH ITS MOST RECENT TEXT. INCREASE ITS MODIFICATION > NUMBER. > > > > TITLE: THE INSANE REPEALS, PART B > IF "THE INSANE REPEALS, PART A" PASSED, THEN: > * REPEAL ALL POWER=1, EVEN-NUMBERED RULES. > * OSCARMEYR WINS UNDER RULE 1729 Note that you can make these secret votes by moving them to the Star Chamber (R2409). -G.