ais523 wrote: > Arguments: With Notice didn't exist when the Points Party was created. > See also the endless precedents about the First Speaker, and the strong > implication of rule 1586; that using a rules-undefined term in a way > that clearly indicates that it isn't meant to be a term in the rules > doesn't cause it to become a use of a rules-defined term if a term > that's vaguely similar is later defined in the rules. (Besides, nothing > prevents the action taking place /even if/ it's defined to mean "With > Notice", simply because although it can't be done dependently, the > natural-language definition allows the action to be done independently. > This is possibly a bug in the dependent action rules.)
Counterarguments: Rule 104 is Power 3, and also depends on the scope of "First" (which the rules defining the current Speaker never explicitly attempted to re-define). Rule 1586 clearly prevents hijacking of references to entities by name, but does not clearly extend to procedures. And it's only Power 2. If the contract-defined method counts as With Notice, then Rule 2125(c) prevents it from being used independently.
