If this case isn't withdrawn, it might be worth adding to your
arguments the specific rules-hook: re-enactment in R105 describes
things that can be done to "repealed rules", so they are a category
of entity that have rules-explicit legal significance.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 9:29 PM Jason Cobb w
Also, even with the correct Rule number, I think the answer is
guaranteed to be TRUE, since the repeal of a Rule does not cause it to
cease to exist, it just causes it to cease to be a rule, its power to be
set to 0, and to relieve the Rulekeepor of the responsibility to
maintain it. As a furth
Ooh! Then I favour this CFJ!
Jason Cobb
On 7/15/19 10:36 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.
It's 2517.
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 20:23 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by
> Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have
> been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has
> been discussed once
I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by
Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have
been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has
been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect,
notably in the D
And now you see why we never ratify the FLR.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:02 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
> then repealed, without being re-enacted,
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, even if it was for a
self-serving purpose. I will investigate the history of this rule and
report back.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:02 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
> then. On R
Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't
then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and
then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off
there.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley
wrote:
> No part of any
They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we
ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we
accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so
that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the
FLR is ne
No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying.
--
Trigon
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote:
> Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
> friend.
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley
> wrote:
>
> > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
> >
> > These rulesets ar
Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a
friend.
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley wrote:
> THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET
>
> These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/
>
> Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019
> Date of
12 matches
Mail list logo
