comex wrote: >> 5230 O1 1 comex reintroduce "players must follow the rul... >FOR*1048576 (Concerning Zefram's response, yes it does, combined with >R1742!)
What it actually reintroduces is the failed model of "the rules are a binding agreement". We've never actually adjudicated the rules that way, and the rules aren't written to be adjudicated that way. >> 5232 D1 3 comex OPPOSE is a nice word. >FOR (But this will obviously fail. If I changed "object" to "oppose" more >consistently, as root commented, would you vote for this?) Probably. I agree that "oppose" is a better word here: it's more accurately antonymous to "support". -zefram
