Kerim Aydin wrote:
I would disagree
with Zefram's choice, and follow the old regulation governing
amendments,
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended.
Zefram wrote:
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended.
Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't
involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment
Goethe wrote:
I'd suggest the following record for R105:
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 3445
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created,
amending had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the
instant before)
Not true. The new 105 was created (as 2131) under the auspices of the
old 105. When the new 105 was modified, that was
Zefram wrote:
This did not cause any rule to acquire a number
previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two
entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self-
reference alert: is a Rule a
On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Zefram wrote:
Amend the rule titled Fantasy Rule Changes to have number 105,
As amendment numbers are no longer defined by the rules, I've decided
that this renumbering did not change the amendment number. That
is, Rule
2131/0 became Rule 105/0, despite the
6 matches
Mail list logo
