Re: [s-b] [s-d] Consultation 203

[Tyler <wisety@xxxxxxxxx>]

Oh, so you mean that Rule 57 allows Contracts to specify activites (which
are necessary to amend the Contract), and thus makes those activities
specified indirectly by the rules?

On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:43 -0700, Tyler wrote:
> > Yes, he didn't consider the arguments ais523 made in his scam, (which
> ehird
> > did cite, btw) but his reasoning was correct. There was nothing that gave
> > ais523 power to repeal that rule.
> >
> > The relevant Rule text: "Contracts may be modified with the explicit
> > approval of all parties, as well as in any other way allowed by that
> > Contract." Although it is ambiguous, in my opinion the only action it
> allows
> > is modifying the contract. If the "way" that is supposedly "allowed by
> that
> > Contract" is impossible to traverse, (sidenote: then it isn't really
> allowed
> > by the Contract, is it?) then you can't modify the Contract, since that
> > action is dependent on the traversal of the way. That's my
> interpretation,
> > and it seems to be consistent with the original intent.
>
> Rule 5e10 is relevant here as well. I don't think that rule 5e57 was
> sufficient by itself to allow me to change the rules, but it opens up a
> loophole in rule 5e10.
> --
> ais523
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss
>



-- 
 -Tyler
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business