On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: >> There isn't a problem here: R1586 isn't triggered at all. It's to do >> with things such as Contracts, which are rules-defined and exist outside >> the rules somehow, and which can continue to exist when the contract >> rules are amended. > > As I said, I apologize for invoking R1586. Please look at Rule 754.
So you're arguing that increasing a voting limit means increasing caste which is secured? That seems like a stretch to me... "in X case the voting limit is caste [in other cases the voting limit is something else]" + "increase voting limit" = "increase caste"?
