RE: spoon-discuss: RE: spoon-business: nweek 5 results!

[Eric Gerlach <egerlach@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:

> On 2/5/02 at 11:59 AM Gavin Doig wrote:
> 
> >> Okay, I'll bite.  Your proposal to amend
> >> rule 129 failed, and I can't find any
> >> public forum actions with your name
> >> on them that amend rule 129, so
> >> whenabouts did you amend rule 129?
> >>
> >Uh... when I replied to the nweek 5 results? The message that I then
> >replied to to start this thread?
> >
> >uin.
> 
> Right, found it.  It was ruled illegal by CFJ 305, so the Admin was not at the time obligated to do anything in response to it, and the game state wasn't affected then.
> 
> So if your action was an illegal action then, but by r129 is a legal action now, then r129 is changing the nature of the action.  Since the action was in the past, r129 making it legal would change the past, which is illegal by r17, which takes precedence over r129.

And therefore, Rule 129 is useless, and Uncle Psychosis's campaign to
correct it is quite justified.  So how much longer does he have to keep
shoving it in our faces before we vote in one of his proposals to fix it,
eh?

Bean