On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Sep 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Choice? What choice? I think the point has been made clear that the >>>> CotC and Poobah must choose as fairly as possible or be removed from >>>> office. I submit the Protection Racket and my brief tenure as Grand >>>> Poobah as evidence in this case. >>> >>> By rule, the Speaker must assign prerogatives randomly. The CotC and >>> Poobah can choose what they do. The fact that they can be removed if >>> they're blatantly corrupt doesn't mean they have no discretion at all, >>> in fact, even corrupt selections by either don't violate the rules; >>> the only "punishment" is the displeasure of the other players, who can >>> remove the officer in question. >>> >> Yes indeed...but if we are talking about choice as a "job perk" the >> only true choice is choose fairly and remain in office or show >> favoritism and be expelled. I don't see how giving the Speaker the >> same limited choice does anything to enhance the power of the >> position. > > Because the Speaker isn't elected and can't be kicked out? -Goethe > Hmm....good point. I rest my case (not that I ever had one).
BobTHJ
