On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ah, but it is relevant for making rule changes. R105 doesn't allow > rule changes to be performed by any other mechanism than the one it > provides, and it provides effects, not actions. So I'll grant that > the non-rule-change actions would have worked had they been performed > on behalf of the Monster, but I think the rule-change actions failed.
Interesting. A proposal clearly has a defined "effect"; but what is the effect of a Rule? Rules never directly specify Rule Changes, but always define them to happen at some particular time, or when some conditions are fulfilled (see the many Rules that purported to repeal themselves). "This Rule repeals itself" sounds about as much like an action as "The Mad Scientist CAN act on behalf of the Monster [to create a rule]."
