On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rodlen wrote: > > I judge CFJ 2541 FALSE and CFJ 2542 TRUE. In the first case, Quazie > > attempted to announce that the rule repealed itself without causing it > > to repeal itself. In the second case, e did cause it to repeal itself. > > Players had to specifically cause it to repeal itself, not just announce > > that it repealed itself. > > > > -- > > --Rodlen > I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgment. Rule 105 prevents > Rule Changes from happening other than an instrument taking effect; > Quazie saying e causes a rule to repeal itself is hardly part of that > rule's effect. > > Furthermore, R101(iv) prevents a Rule Change that was not subject to > public review. > ...Hmm...however, placing the big "90 days and this can be repealed by any player", in my opinion, through a proposal (public review of the ability to do the rule change), kind of defeats both points. -- --Rodlen
