root wrote:
From an alternative standpoint, after Rule 2110/2 was replaced with
Rule 2110/3, the former version could no longer affect the game in any
way; thus it could not cause a win, and this CFJ would be FALSE. This
interpretation is troubling when applied to other rules; for example,
a ratification that is underway when Rule 1551 is suddenly amended
might cease to be effectual.
Only if, as in this case, the amendment introduces a new requirement
which the ratification in progress does not meet. I don't have a strong
opinion on the outcome of this case, though (except to hurry up and get
it judged, so that Prerogatives for December can be assigned).
