On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:19 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed, but as a part of the text it would no longer be an annotation.
I disagree with you, but that interpretation's fine. In that case,
the added text was a historical annotation before I added it to a
Rule, so Rule 1051 let
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}
Annotations != rules.
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track
annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular
legal force to the annotations so tracked.
But he can APPEND a historical annotation to a RULE'S TEXT.
- It
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 00:19, Joshua Boehme wrote:
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track
annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular legal
force to the annotations so tracked.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 8:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The actual verbiage is ...the Rulekeepor CAN cause it to amend itself
by adding a historical annotation At best, this is
self-contradictory. The word amend implies that the text is
changed; the word annotation implies
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What if this note was added to the text of the Rule itself?
Note: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions;
this was established by CFJ 24.
Exactly the same text would serve in a Rule to create the
7 matches
Mail list logo
