RE: spoon-discuss: Rule 10 not repealed

["Gavin Doig" <gmd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Okay...so from what I understand, two nweeks ago
> you posted an Action to the public forum that you
> were repealing r10?  And it is your opinion that,
> since there was no CFJ to argue this Action, r129
> makes this Action legal, and therefore r10 is now
> repealed?
>
More or less (it wouldn't make any difference if there had been a CFJ, as the action would still be made legal by r129, but close enough).

> Okay...Well, since r10 is still in the rules list, that
> means the Administrator didn't see, or ignored,
> your Action
>
Yes.

> and didn't update the rule set to match your Action.
>
No. He failed to update *his* *records* to match my action. The *actual* rule set doesn't depend on him to update it. It's quite possible for his records to be in error. Of course, my revision of r129 would have made it work as you describe...

> Since his Action, which was failing to act upon your
> Action, was also two nweeks ago, r129 says his
> Action can't be CFJ'd either, and therefore his Action
> is legal too.
>
No. Rule 129 refers only to player actions, and the admin is (quite definite that he's) not a player. His actions are not made legal, and can still be CFJed.

> And therefore, the current rule set listed on the website,
> which includes the not-repealed r10, is a reflection of his
> legal action, and consequently the legal state of the rule set.
>
No. It's a reflection of how the admin claims the rule set is - nothing more. If he changed all the rules in his records to say "monkey", would that mean that that was what the rules actually said? Well, perhaps you'd say so, but I certainly wouldn't.

> Don't know why I didn't see that earlier...
>
Because it's flawed on so many levels? ;-)

uin.
-- 

_______________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Win a ski trip!
http://www.nowcode.com/register.asp?affiliate=1net2phone3a