On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
The concept of a democratic proposal was in the ruleset at the end of 2007 (*I* was a player then, and so were Murphy and root, dunno about ais523)-- see http://agora.qoid.us/rule/106#406452 . The old rule I cited was just evidence of how long the concept has existed-- more recently, before Rule 106, the concept was also in Rule 1933 -- http://agora.qoid.us/rule/1933#405683 . Remember, this is a situation where the "old rule" (not really that old, tbh) would have satisfied the literal meaning of the intent and the new rule does not. And all that has to exist is ambiguity.
