>Although I do think grok's "If I am still an objector, but my objection
>has been withdrawn [by someone else], can I withdraw my objection?" is >a valid question. We don't even have a mechanic to *withdraw* in the first place. If you can pull out of the ether that you can "withdraw", I believe its reasonable to pull out of the ether too that you can "withdraw withdrawn" things. Or withdraw my withdrawal. Then withdraw the objection (because its no longer withdrawn). >As far as I can tell, nothing prevents people withdrawing other >people's objections, but doing so doesn't do anything (apart from >possibly triggering the 24 hour lockout); objections only cease to be >counted if they're withdrawn by the objector. Gah, I was so close lol. Just one eensy teensy conjugation away. >Um... You usually have to prove you can do a thing that seems obvious >wrong or people will ignore it. Yes, I will do so next time. > No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is > that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited. > It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care > about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do > is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player > doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It > doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't > before. See also CFJ 2151. So... Nobody can actually withdraw anything? Because its unregulated, and there is no mechanical way to actually do the action of 'withdraw'?
