On Jan 25, 2008 2:47 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Zefram wrote: > > > Ed Murphy wrote: > >> CFJ 1659 found that even a contract can't override an explicit rule > >> definition, much less a long-standing but still unlegislated custom. > > > > And as a result we amended the rule that led to that judgement. > > Contextual modifications now can override rule definitions. > > That would be the "by default" clause in 754(2), yes? It's still > unclear whether unofficial custom suffices to trigger that, though.
I think a system where unofficial custom can override something explicitly defined in the Rules is almost completely unworkable, not to mention a huge burden to new players. Who defines what exactly is "custom"? If I start posting messages claiming a copy-and-pasted line from a ballot followed by the word "AGAINST" is a synonym for "I deregister", should attempts to vote against a proposal be taken as deregistrations? What if I post these messages frequently for a period of a few months? What if several more players join me in doing so? What's the threshold for people repeatedly using a term in one way before it's "custom" and therefore able to override a rule? -- Geoffrey Spear http://www.geoffreyspear.com/
