Sgeo wrote: > If a judge makes a judgment that mentions the rule, if the judgment > doesn't include the amendment number, the judge has violated this > rule.
This would go somewhere in Rule 2205, and would presumably be downgraded to SHOULD to match the rest of that rule. In most cases, you could figure this out by cross-referencing relevant dates against the FLR, particularly comex's rule-history browser. (Then again, we lost years of list archives when Escribe died. Taral, to what extent are the agoranomic.org archives being backed up?) > I can't actually find a reference to the amendment number of rules in > the ruleset.. They're not officially regulated. You could just say that rule citations SHOULD specify which version of the rule they're referencing, preferably by including relevant portions as evidence.
