On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I publish official report X, which if ratified would make me dictator. >> I intend to (ratify X without objection), with support. >> I cause Player B, on whose behalf I can act, to support this. >> Having obtained the necessary support, I hereby perform the action >> "ratify X without objection" as permitted by R1728. > > The Rules do not explicitly authorize you to (ratify X without > objection) with support. > > But there's no reason R1728 shouldn't support > with-support-without-objection generally. (Goethe, was it intended > to?)
R1728? I think we used it that way a couple times "way back when (before repeals?) and I like it myself. I haven't personally been tracking various tinkerings with the Rule so I don't know what was intended, don't see the harm in enabling in within R1728 (root's right in that it's ambiguous so a R1728-fix wouldn't hurt). -G.
