On 3 Oct 2008, at 23:00, Charles Reiss wrote:
I don't see how either proposal would be effective under R1698
(especially if the recently proposed amendment to R101 passes). Even
if it is, I am strongly opposed to attempting to read into "game
custom" entire mechanisms for changing the rules.
-
On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, ehird wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2008, at 22:45, ihope wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with
>> adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and
>> 2029.
>>
>> Note that Rule 101 implies that CFJs still exist, implying that the
>>
On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 14:53, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 5:45 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with
>> adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and
>> 2029.
>
> I retract that propo
On 3 Oct 2008, at 22:45, ihope wrote:
I submit the following proposal, titled "A Great Relief", with
adoption index 3: Repeal all rules except Rules 101, 104, 217, and
2029.
Note that Rule 101 implies that CFJs still exist, implying that the
CotC, offices, players, public fora, etc. still exist
4 matches
Mail list logo
