This is definitely "largely the same purpose". The original rule was 3 paragraphs, the new rule is the 2nd paragraph of the old rule verbatim (except for changes in officer names). The missing paragraphs were the added process (for the same purpose) that seemed unneeded. I'll fix the title thing though.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:55 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to > have “largely the same purpose” or something. > > Gaelan > > > On Jan 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had > to > > converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >>> Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), > >>> at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the > >>> following text: > >> > >> I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, > >> although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at > all. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > >
