On Sun, 12 Oct 2014, Eritivus wrote:
> Is there precedent for interpreting "subject" in R105 not as "subject",
> but "subjected", under these definitions?
Fairly certain this distinction has never come up explicitly.
> I take it that there may be at
> least a custom of 'standard dictatorship processes' which seem to rely
> on the latter interpretation?
I think the Rules have changed substantially recently (major amendment
of R101 last year, and repeal of a couple key rules). The custom behind
the "standard dictatorship" depended on readings of those rules.
Secondly, there's been enough player turnover in the last year that
"custom" is up in the air.
I think all sides here are "reasonable" in that they (so far that
I've seen) show self-consistent logic that differ depending on
initial interpretations of common definitions, where reasonable people
may differ ("process", "review", now possibly "subject").
So IMO the Rules are truly silent, at least a few choices seem equally
reasonable, and custom/precedents are outdated. So we're essentially
forming a new Custom here (which is why I thought that a Moot-style vote
seemed like a good way).
-G.
