Re: [s-b] [s-d] Proposal: New Rule

[Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oops, I forgot to include the text of the rules I used as evidence.
Let's try this again.

On 30 March 2012 17:41, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As there is no obvious restriction on the results of a CfD, I call for
> determination on the Rules.

No.

Evidence: Rule 22E4.3 (title "Determination", subrule of 22E4,
"Resolution"), quoted here:

    The participant with the Burden of Determination is then required to
    pass determination on the matter. The valid determinations are "Yes",
    "No", and "Maybe". If the matter to determine has no obvious answer
    along these lines (for instance, because it is not a coherent statement),
    then any answer is acceptable. Otherwise, the Burdenee should only
    make determinations they believe to be truthful.

    If the Burdenee does not feel they are suitable to determine the matter
    at hand, they may recuse themselves. If no determination is made within
    3 days, they are automatically recused. (See rule 22E4.5, "Recusing".)

> Then I do so again, because I'd be
> disappointed if they hadn't changed in between these two sentences.

No (same evidence as previous determination).
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business