spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: CFJ

["Donald Whytock" <dwhytock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/4/02 at 12:55 AM David E. Smith wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Mar 2002, Donald Whytock wrote:
>
>> On 2/14/2002 I objected to the Administrator's earlier statement that
>> proposal 377 was on a ballot.  I contend that now, as per r129, the
>> game state is altered to a state that doesn't include that statement,
>> since it was objected to.
>
>Since r129 didn't exist in the current form at that time, I could
>counter-contend that your statement cannot have an effect (since it would
>be governed by the then-extant version of r129).
>
>Failing that, though, per the current version of r129, "the usual methods
>for determining the current rules and game state shall apply." And since
>your subject contains the phrase "CFJ" I choose to believe that you do in
>fact intend for your statement to be a CFJ.
>
>So... CFJ 430, assigned to Iain.
>
>...dave

The current version of r129 says it takes precedence over all other rules.  I assume that includes the rule against retroactive actions, so even though the current version of r129 wasn't in effect then, the fact that it was in effect 20 days after your announcement is sufficient to affect the announcement.

And yes, I meant my message to be a statement for a CFJ.  Thank you for your concern.

						Glotmorf