On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > 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.
I don't think this would be the correct strictly legalistic interpretation. The requirement is that the change was, in fact, subject to review through a reasonably public process, not that the change was only allowed by the originally enabling rule *because* it had been so subject. That would be a property of the rules rather than of the change. > 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? In fact, I didn't say such a thing explicitly. The review wasn't started because I said it did, but because I posted a proposed rule change to a public forum players are generally expected to read, with text implying that it would be imposed by fiat soon. Whether or not people had the opportunity to go through a review process is a matter of external reality that exists independently of the rules; in lieu of an explicit definition of an exact type of process required, the reference merely reflects that reality.
