Re: [s-d] [s-b] Consultation 203

[Alex Smith <ais523@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 11:43 -0700, Tyler wrote:
> Yes, he didn't consider the arguments ais523 made in his scam, (which ehird
> did cite, btw) but his reasoning was correct. There was nothing that gave
> ais523 power to repeal that rule.
> 
> The relevant Rule text: "Contracts may be modified with the explicit
> approval of all parties, as well as in any other way allowed by that
> Contract." Although it is ambiguous, in my opinion the only action it allows
> is modifying the contract. If the "way" that is supposedly "allowed by that
> Contract" is impossible to traverse, (sidenote: then it isn't really allowed
> by the Contract, is it?) then you can't modify the Contract, since that
> action is dependent on the traversal of the way. That's my interpretation,
> and it seems to be consistent with the original intent.

Rule 5e10 is relevant here as well. I don't think that rule 5e57 was
sufficient by itself to allow me to change the rules, but it opens up a
loophole in rule 5e10.
-- 
ais523

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss