Ok, the more I think about this case the more I think we're missing the bigger picture.
In most cases, when a high-powered Rule conflicts with a low- powered rule mechanism, we just say "that mechanism doesn't work, so attempt fails". We don't invent a extra-legal pseudo process to make the broken Rule work. So why do we do it here? It's entirely historical. The clause that states that Rule Changes need "reasonable review" was part of the grand R101 Rights concept. The Rights idea was that certain protections were "natural" to all players, but these rights were written generally without specific enforcement mechanisms. This was part and parcel of the "equity" idea of these rights having more "natural" spirit rather than letter of the rule interpretations. The current understanding of how to create a pseudo-process stems from this thinking - that it's POSSIBLE to start a "natural, informal" process to give everyone a chance to review, and this informal process would suffice legally. But... we REPEALED Rights. On purpose. We kept a couple clauses as protections, but we purposefully stepped away from this equity line of thinking, with Repeals, etc. SO: Why aren't we going back to a strictly legalistic interpretation of that clause? The Low-Powered Rule sets up a Rules Change mechanism of By Announcement. By Announcement doesn't allow for explicit review. That Rules mechanism is therefore overruled by a higher-powered rule, and just plain old doesn't work. SO: Given, explicitly, that we repealed the Rights concept in the old R101, and all the precedents on this pseudo-process were under the ideal of Rights, what are the arguments for actually allowing an informal process to function at all under the current ruleset? I mean, if omd states "I hereby start the process of Review" when the rules don't govern such a thing, isn't that just a classic ISIDTID fallacy? -G.
