On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > My argument is that this is governed by R2140(c). A Proposal is an > instrument of power, and if it attempts to create a token, it is > "modifying a substantive aspect" of the rule defining the Tokens (my > argument implies that it is the token-defining Rule that matters, not any > rule that may govern an individual award, nor one that governs broader > definitions such as assets in general. This would lead to a judgement > of FALSE/TRUE on the linked CFJs.
Arguably, the things a rule merely defines are not aspects of that rule at all, any more than the United States is an aspect of federal law. This is probably the interpretation we should go with for the good of Agora. —Tanner L. Swett
