On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Interesting. But I can think of at least one half-parsing of R106 so > that this bug isn't there (I'll think about it a bit and read it back > and forth before posting, I'm not wholly convinced either way). > > Since rulesets don't ratify, if you're right, we'd have to go back and > see anytime the rulekeepor noted that something had insufficient power...
This is the first time something has failed due to insufficient power since the scam amendment was made (well, at least that I've noticed). -- -c.
