ais523 wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 09:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 23:05, Sean Hunt <ride...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Aaron Goldfein wrote:
>>>> I appeal this judgment.
>>> Since I spent a Note to remove one of your Rests in the belief that 3
>>> Rests was excessive, I would ask that, if the judgment is overruled,
>>> remanded, or reassigned, you repay me in some manner.
>>>
>>> I have no way of enforcing this, but I will note if you do not.
>>>
>> If the judgment is overruled or re-assigned then it was never valid,
>> which means the rests were never created, and therefore your spending
>> notes to destroy one was invalid.
>>
> Err, no. You can't retroactively prevent a judgement having happened.
>
> Instead, the appeals panel has to destroy the rests by announcement;
> which might be problematic, given that they no longer all exist. (Rule
> 1504; incidentally, {Wooble, Rodlen, Tiger} have failed for over a week
> to meet this SHALL, but the rule forgets to specify a time limit. I
> wonder what recourse I have in this case? Probably, a proposal to fix
> the rule; I'll do that.)
Proto-proto: If an entity is required to destroy a Rest in the
possession of a player with no Rests, it CAN by announcement create a
Note of a specified pitch and a Rest in the possession of that player.
