It was CFJ 1625. "Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change."
That doesn't refer to when the other rule doesn't exist. But, the rules say, "An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does." I think this would fall under "any other variation". On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:55 AM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:43 AM, tmanthe2nd . <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Proposals 7773 and 7774 gives the wrong ID number for the rule it > amends. > > >> Rule 2455 does not exist. So, the proposals don't actually do > anything. > > > > > > So they do. Nice catch. > > > > Though if you ask me, the phrase 'Rule 2455 "How to Pend a Proposal"' > > is completely unambiguous. There's absolutely no reasonable doubt as > > to what the intended meaning of the phrase is, so the error > > constitutes "difference in spelling" which "does not create an > > ambiguity in meaning". > > A CFJ found differently IIRC, but I think in that case the mis-numbering > referred accidentally to a different existing rule. > > As Rulekeepor, I wholly disagree that this is a different in "spelling", > though it *may* still be clear enough depending what the precedent > says... > > > >
