On Wed, 2018-07-11 at 21:05 -0400, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > The invalid one was the one that I was referencing. As for why I think > ti can be done after-the-fact, I think that it is different because so > far, it has been fulfilled outside of the arguments in a preface, so I > either think that it should be accepted in this after-the-fact form or > any rule, which only referenced in a preface should also be marked > invalid. What are your thoughts on that? Additionally, I made the > classification, prior to receiving the message from ais523.
Out of interest, does anyone know what Nomic World's status on arguing technicalities of the rules was? This conversation reminded me that the position on technicalities is one of the most obvious defining differences between Agora and the FRC (in Agora we rather revel in them and try to close loopholes, in the FRC there's a big split in the playerbase about how valid abusing a technicality is, with some players believing that a rule can imply things that it doesn't say and thus contradicting even an implied restriction can cause a rule's invalidity). -- ais523
