RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/31/02 at 1:13 PM Gavin Doig wrote:

>> 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.
>
>uin.

Rule 11 says, "The Ruleset is the collective body of current Rule versions. The Ruleset may be altered only as provided therein." And since there's no provision for altering the ruleset as a player action, declaring Rule 10 repealed doesn't count.  Rule 11 takes precedence over Rule 129.  And, interestingly, over Rule 18.

						Glotmorf