On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:50 PM, comex <com...@gmail.com> wrote: > The judgement that ruled that the rule exists was published two days > ago, before which I thought it probably didn't, and we haven't even > reached the appeals deadline. I'm kind of conservative with this and > I don't believe Zefram ever recorded ambiguity notes due to new rules > created by scams, though maybe that's just because there weren't any > scams that created new rules (I don't remember) and I can include them > if it's beneficial. The rule will be repealed as soon as I get the > chance-- I've been busy this week. Do you really have to call > criminal cases over ID numbers? Sheesh.
My ability to judge the case in the first place was hindered by the lack of an easy reference to the purported rule, and the fact that you repealed a rule by reference to its number, when the text of that rule with that number wasn't available in any report or on the rule history page. My ability, as IADoP, to correctly record the identity of the Speaker is also hindered by Sgeo's conditional attempt to award MWoP based, in part, on the text of a rule that's not easily available.
