G. wrote: > ============================== CFJ 2651 ============================== > If I don't receive 15 objections, it will be POSSIBLE for me to > indirectly cause a Rule Change using Contract A. > ======================================================================== > > JUDGE'S PROTO-ARGUMENTS: > > Let's start with the authorizing agent: R1728/24 (power=3) reads in > part: > A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract > as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above > requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that > action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes > whose existence depends on that contract.
I think this can actually be shot down based on that last restriction, as the new rule (once created) would continue to exist independently of the contract.
