On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think R101's relevant here when a contract isn't involved (one > was in the case of CFJ 1856). It would, probably, prevent me ratifying > the IIB as a player, as its personness is in doubt for > contract-law-related reasons.
Well, I forget what the current status of rules-as-a-contract is; if we're currently viewing the rules themselves as a contract, or if we're not but we return to that standpoint someday without an explicit rule change, then that could be a problem. -root
