Ed Murphy wrote:
>If the restriction comes from the securing rule, then circumventing
>it requires (SR's power + 0.1). If it comes from R1688, then
>circumventing it requires (SR's power * 1.1).
Nope. Either way, circumventing it requires only the SR's power: at
that power an instrument can amen
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
threshold defaults to the securing rule's power, but CAN be
altered as allowed by that rule, up to a maximum of 1.1 times
the securing rule's power.
I think it's stupid to allow a threshold higher than the power of the
defining rule. Such a thres
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'm not sure that this actually does what you suggest.
What's the flaw in it?
Defining a change as secured is equivalent to making it IMPOSSIBLE
except as allowed by an instrument etc.
That seems pretty much equivalent to mine. The biggest differe
Ed Murphy wrote:
> threshold defaults to the securing rule's power, but CAN be
> altered as allowed by that rule, up to a maximum of 1.1 times
> the securing rule's power.
I think it's stupid to allow a threshold higher than the power of the
defining rule. Such a threshold is trivi
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I'm not sure that this actually does what you suggest.
What's the flaw in it?
> Defining a change as secured is equivalent to making it IMPOSSIBLE
> except as allowed by an instrument etc.
That seems pretty much equivalent to mine. The biggest difference that
I see i
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by appending this text:
A secured change CANNOT be performed except as allowed by an
instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule
defining that change as secured.
I'm dubious about doing it this way round.
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by appending this text:
>
> A secured change CANNOT be performed except as allowed by an
> instrument with power at least as great as that of the rule
> defining that change as secured.
I'm dubious about doing it this way round. You have R1
7 matches
Mail list logo
