On Wed, 1 Jan 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-01 at 13:59 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > For example, common sense committee procedure says "you can't both support
> > and object to something at the same time." But because someone a while
> > ago probably CFJed on that, and a judge said "well the Rules don't say
> > you can't, so you can", then we had to put a sentence that you couldn't
> > do both.
> supporting an action and objecting to it
> are both ISIDTID-based actions, meaning that they don't have any
> particular reason to match up with real-world intuitions, and the names
> are arbitrary.
See, I fundamentally disagree with this. I feel that we've more-or-less
tried to implement an email version of parliamentary voice vote ("all in
favor?... opposed?... the ayes have it!") And in that context, supporting
and objecting have fairly common sense meanings that are mutually exclusive.
The fact that your view predominates in Agora (not criticizing, just
stating the fact) is why we need all the legalese and "simplification"
efforts may be doomed.
