Re: [s-b] $wgLogo

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business