James Baxter on Mon, 5 Apr 2010 14:12:38 -0700 (MST)

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

[s-b] [Oracle] CFI 111

> Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2010 14:46:26 -0700
> From: rideau3@xxxxxxxxx
> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 110 reassignment
> I call for inquiry on the following statement: "A Refresh Proposal can 
> cause a Rule Change."
> Arguments: There is no definition of taking effect, so the ordinary 
> definition of taking affect applies to Refresh Proposals, which means 
> that they go and change the game state. However, there is no explicit 
> text indicating that Refresh Proposals change the rules, and so Rule 22 
> may prevent them from changing the rules. While it is clear that the 
> Refresh Proposal made sure that it is David, I do not know whether the 
> Refresh Proposal amended Rule 10.

This is CFI 111. I assign CFI 111 to Judge Murphy.

Gratuitous Arguments: Refresh proposals take effect, that means that if they say they change the rules then that is included in their taking effect ("take effect" is subject to interpretation using its normal definition). This means that rule changes are implicit in the words "take effect" and so work as Rule 22 allows implicit permission of rule changes ("Changing the Rules is permitted only as explicitly or implicitly described by a Rule..."). It should also be noted that the most recent refresh proposal attempted to modify Rule 3, not Rule 10.

We want to hear all your funny, exciting and crazy Hotmail stories. Tell us now
spoon-business mailing list