On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 15:49 +0000, Alex Smith wrote: > On Fri, 2008-11-21 at 07:29 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > > > I support. If someone says something not in the rules with an intent to > > > perform an action, normally it is reasonable to presume they meant the > > > correct version not the incorrect version (per R754); however, if the > > > rules in question have recently changed, there is enough doubt to > > > prevent the intention being clear (as is currently required for > > > dependent actions). > > > > Let me get this straight--- you and ehird honestly and truly believe > > that a change *that happened before you registered in the game and > > you never saw* can be reasonably confused with an old rule? (Apologies > > if I've got registration dates mixed). And that comex citing A RULE > > THAT HAS BEEN OUT OF THE RULESET FOR YEARS is backup evidence? Can you > > at least, vaguely, occasionally, *try to pretend* that you're willing to > > let judgements stand in place of your self-interest? Just as an > > *occasional* courtesy? > > > I was just taking comex on trust that the rule was recently modified, > possibly I shouldn't have been... > OK, I checked. The language "Ordinary proposals" was in rule 2156/4 until 2 February 2008, when it was replaced by rule 2156/5. That's not "OUT OF THE RULESET FOR YEARS", Feb 2008 is quite recent.
Even more importantly, Rule 2126/52 said "VVLOP" until 21 June 2008; that definitely isn't ancient history. I amended it to "VVLOD" in rule 2125/53 myself. "*that happened before you registered in the game and you never saw*"? I fixed it myself! Of course I saw it! I shouldn't have taken Goethe on trust that it's a very old change, either... Goethe, I sort-of would have expected comex to lie about old rules, but you? -- ais523
