[Nomic] Threadsplit.

[Adam Biltcliffe]

On Sep 27 2004, Jonathan David Amery wrote:

> I'm borrowing terminology from Acka here; since we haven't invented
> any.

And we *really* need that judgement procedure, but I've heard people 
criticise the way I'd like it done. Might make another proposal for it 
anyway, since I'm down to only two outstanding, one of which I never intend 
to issue notice on anyway ;)
 
>  Thread A: 
>   Assertion: 
>    MEWO is incorrect, and his prior vote for an earlier version of the
>    proposal did count.

We all seem to agree that this isn't the case, although I can't find the 
email where he did give consent to an alternate form of the rule at the 
moment.

>  Thread B:
>   Assertion:
>    MEWO was correct.  However, his mail does not constitute explicitly
>    expressing a lack of consent.
>   Conclusions:
>    Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was
>    correct; the rules should include the rule of Lizardmen as Rule 12.

This is the interpretation I'm currently leaning towards. I think it comes 
down to the interpretation of the word 'express'; if one understands it to 
mean something distinct from 'note the existence of', Martin has not 
expressed explicit lack of consent, he's merely pointed out that he didn't 
consent.

>  Thread C:
>   Assertion:
>    MEWO was correct.  Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing
>    a lack of consent, but did not constitute explicitly stating that
>    he was opposed either.
>   Conclusions:
>    Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was
>    also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of 
>    Lizardmen; should MEWO later consent then Wild Card could
>    validly post an NoC for the Rule of Autoadoption.

This is also a possibility, if you take the alternate interpretation of the 
Rule of Assumed Consent.

>  Thread D:
>   Assertion:
>    MEWO was correct.  Also his mail constituted explicitly expressing
>    a lack of consent, in the process constituting opposition.
>   Conclusions:
>    Wild Card's original NoC was incorrect; the subsequent one was
>    also incorrect; the rules should not include the rule of 
>    Lizardmen; The Rule of Lizardmen can't be adopted in it's current
>    form. 

I know Wild Card is aware of this, but I should point out for the sake of 
others watching that the rules do not recognise the existence of opposition 
to a rule. Saying "I absolutely swear that I will never ever vote for this 
rule" is not functionally different to saying "I'm not consenting to this 
for now, let's see what happens"; in either case, declaring consent for it 
at any later time is equivalent to voting in favour originally.

I'd really like to hear Martin's opinions on the threadsplit. Anyone know 
when we can expect to hear from him again?

adam