Gavin Doig on 31 Jan 2002 18:12:25 -0000

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

RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed

> But rule 18 takes precedence over rule 129.
I've already addressed this - they're not in conflict, so precedence doesn't enter into it.

Can anyone give me a convincing reason why my repealing rule 10 doesn't work? Rule 129 permits it, so rule 18 permits it, so I can't see why it wouldn't happen.

The only vaguely plausible argument I've seen was Iain's "it wasn't made legal because it wasn't legal so it didn't happen, and only actions which happen are legalised", which, if true, means that rule 129 is merely completely useless, rather than horribly, game-breakingly broken as I feared. In many ways that would be preferrable, because it will prevent Scoff!'s forfeitures from being legalised in 1 nweek.

I'll just point out that, if Iain's CFJ is wrong, and my statute proosal fails, then not only will Scoff!'s forfeitures happen, but before that I'll get a win. Yes, someone CFJed those actions, but if you read rule 129, you'll notice that it doesn't say "actions which happened more than 1 nweek ago are made legal unless they've been CFJed "- it says "actions which happened more than one nweek ago are made legal, and may not be CFJed". You could argue that the CFJ has the "force of law", and therefore makes them illegal, but rules beat CFJs, and "force of law" is anyway a pretty poorly defined term.


Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at

Win a ski trip!