On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, comex wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> But if you accept that, I can see that your logic works, PROVIDED
>> it's accepted that Proposal wasn't adopted (R208 prevents ratification
>> from doing that), none of the baggage (awards or whatever) that come
>> from proposals being adopted happen, none of the NON-RULE CHANGE
>> provisions of the proposal ("The value of X is hereby set to Y") work
>> (because those require the proposal itself to take effect for their
>> provisions to be implemented), and the Rule was created wholly by
>> R1551 making the rule change, as R105 allows.
>
> Mm, why? If a proposal said "destroy all cards", why can't Rule 1551
> destroy all cards?
Actually I'm not sure the argument works anyway. If something claims
to set the adoption-state of a proposal, but fails (as ratification does),
it doesn't make sense to pick and choose the individual pieces of the
proposal and say that those parts worked. It either succeeded or
failed in making the proposal become adopted. If it failed, none
of the effects of adopting the proposal took place.
If the rules say that I can "When a person does X, then Y and Z happen"
and a person says they do X and fail, you don't say "well, the trigger
X failed, but since they can do Z through another mechanism, we'll say
that they did Z."
Anyway, I'm kinda tired of arguing it. Y'all think it works, so I guess
by consent it does, regardless of the rule texts.
-G.
