comex wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> comex wrote: >> >>> Not really. Even the contracts that define dependent actions aren't >>> really allowed to (Rule 1728: "the Rules explicitly authorize..."). >> I think this is covered by the first paragraph of Rule 2198: >> >> If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to >> it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using >> that mechanism. > > Hmm... > > What about a contract that states that its mechanism for being > terminated is an Announcement of Chaos, which destroys all rules and > then terminates the contract?
R2140 would definitely protect all rules with Power > 1.5 (R2198's Power). R105 may or may not protect all rules, period. R2125 (d) would probably stop the whole thing because it would take out R1607.
