On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, comex wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Look, I can't tell what you're arguing here. Whether or not it's a good >> thing to have, ratification doesn't have precedence over the proposal >> mechanism, and can't cause incorrect voting reports to make proposals >> be adopted. It's a straightforward conflict with R208, and R208 wins. >> How exactly does ratification get around a rule that directly contradicts >> it? > > No, but it can enact the effects of the proposal _as if_ it were > adopted. This is how I've always interpreted it.
And that's the whole bloody thing I'm arguing against. If you can change anything by saying "this doesn't conflict with Rule X, because we're acting AS IF it didn't" then all Power is broken, all Security is broken, and all Precedence is broken, because I can make a power-1 rule that says "We are hereby playing AS IF all those other rules don't matter". By your (and Murphy's and coppro's) logic, all a scam has to do is make a power-1 rule "We are not really playing by all the other rules, we are playing AS IF we are playing by this rule." How is this different than ratification as currently written? So ratification is really trying to establish a new precedence system - and remember R1030? If you're going to convince me, you have to convince me why the power-1 rule above wouldn't work to make us discard every rule out there, while accepting that ratification does work. Saying that AS IF (a semantic trick, really) gets us around the truth is like saying that the rules don't matter at all. -G.
