Peter Cooper Jr. on Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:11:44 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-b] $wgLogo

shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> I declare RFJ #6 invalid.
> Reason:
> RFJ's may (only) be submitted when there is a "disagreement as to the
> interpretation of the rules"  [2-5].   Proposals are not rules, and in
> fact never become rules.
> So RFJ #6 does not itself exist, ironically.  Or at least is not an
> RFJ.

Hmm... I'm going to have to disagree. RFJ 6 is not about interpreting
the contents of a proposal, but whether the proposal fits the rules'
definition of a proposal. (Now, this statement of mine could certainly
have an RFJ submitted about it, since I might be wrong. But we'll go
on for now with this line of reasoning...)

But, you can rule it Invalid, and thus the courts have spoken.

> I'd like to raise my own request for judgement to get this sorted:
> {{Statement: Should a player be called upon to judge an RFJ that is
> not valid according to the rules, then e may declare it invalid.  E
> does not need to render judgement, since it is not an RFJ as defined
> in the rules.}}

I don't quite understand what this RFJ is supposed to tell us, but
it's RFJ 7, assigned to Wild Card.

Peter C.
spoon-business mailing list