On Sun, 2009-08-09 at 12:16 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: > 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.
The rule in question stated that it was repealed if the contract disappeared. -- ais523
