On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Charles Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 June 2011 07:45, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >> (As you might guess, this is a Spelunking entry.) > > CoE: I don't think it is. The proposal does not attempt to amend or > repeal any goals, it isn't a CFJ and your game actions did not > critically rely on any of the goals. The same goes for omd's entry (if > it is supposed to be an entry).
Both of them rely on Rule 106, although you're correct that they're not valid entries in that they don't explicitly say they're relying on it.
