On Mon, 5 Jan 2009, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 5 Jan 2009, at 18:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Therefore, taking A-C together, this court finds that ehird DOES have >> Rests, that constitute a losing condition and reduce voting power >> as indicated by the Rules, without violating R101. However, R101 takes >> precedence over the clause of R2229/0 that limits ehird's spending, >> thus e is not currently constrained by the "CANNOT spend Notes" clause >> of R2229/0 (if ehird goes below 8 rests but not down to zero, then goes >> up above 8 again, this might need to be readdressed depending on the >> exact circumstances). > > Confusing. I have things that are like rests but don't always behave > like rests...? But that still are rests?
Well... first of all my CFJ wasn't specifically answering this, so the part about "no spending" may be the subject of an "extended" CFJ that builds on these principles. And no, I really, really didn't like to pick and choose pieces of the punishment either. That's too equity, and I, er, ahem, hate equity. But it's really the choice that had to be made. If you ask "what rule, specifically, might R101 conflict with?" you can't say it conflicts with the definition or fact of possession of Rests, because there's nothing in R2228 to implies that Rests are a punishment at all, so R101 cannot conflict with R2228. So the fact that the proposal gave you Rests, and that rests are an asset governed by R2228, does not conflict with R101 in any way (that may have been enough to judge technically TRUE and not give an opinion further btw). Instead, R101, if it conflicts with anything, could only conflict with rules that say what the effect of having rests is. But the trouble is that the effects were spread over different rules with different power, claims of precedence, etc., meant I had to judge conflict w/101 separately for each. And as such, it doesn't conflict with the losing conditions or voting power restrictions (as they are not new or substantially more), but does conflict with the "no spending" rule which is a wholly "new" sort of punishment and a big restrictive change. And yes I really really and on purpose ducked what happens with those only- somewhat-resty rests in the future... it may even be to your advantage to keep a non-resty rest around (i.e. never go down to zero) for its special properties. -Goethe
