On May 12, 2013, at 6:33 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 6:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Causing a rule to become a Slave Golem would modify that rule, and > would not fit within the mechanism of Rule 105 (Power=3), so Rule 105 > prevents it from occurring. FALSE. > > I intend to appeal this with two support, as there is no indication that > making a Rule into a Slave Golem was a Rule Change.
YAGA: I actually think Murphy's argument here is sound. Making a rule into a Slave Golem is certainly not a Rule Change (because Rule 105 defines exactly what things are Rule Changes, and making a rule into a Slave Golem is not one of those things). In addition, Rule 105 states that rules cannot be created, modified, or destroyed except via Rule Changes. Since making a rule into a Slave Golem is a modification of that rule, but is not a Rule Change, it is IMPOSSIBLE. I think this judgement still leaves many questions unanswered, but in my opinion, there's no longer any doubt about the appropriateness of FALSE as a judgement. —Machiavelli
