> I think all the R105 requirements are satisfied by publishing the rule that > contains the change, i.e. it's if there was an SLR published in the 4-60 day > time window beforehand.
Oh, that's interesting. Let me check my understanding... R105 says the full text of the rule change, and the method for changing it, must be published in the 4-60 day window. Interpretation A: If an SLR were published in that period containing the Side Game Suspension Act, it would contain the text "If this Rule is triggered ... this Rule is automatically repealed". So I guess "this rule is automatically repealed" is the full text of the change, and "If this Rule is triggered" is the method? Interpretation B: When I first read that part of R105, I thought it meant the specific change to be made had to be published ahead of time (e.g. by distributing a proposal explicitly saying what changes, or by writing "I intend ... to banish The Ritual"), and the "method to be used for changing the rule" requirement meant that you had to justify in that same message which provision in the rules you're invoking to make the change (e.g. the proposal mechanism, or the mechanism of banishing The Ritual) as a way to prove to the other players that the change really will happen . I'm not sure how well I've explained myself. But if people have been using Interpretation A, I guess Rule 217 would favour that one, which is a good thing.
