On Wed, 2016-10-12 at 22:54 -0400, Sprocklem S wrote:
> First, before I start, I'd like to say: Sorry about the delay.
> Ultimately, I think that the (past) inconvenience of the one time
> ratification of a probably-correct ruleset is dwarfed by the ease of
> detectability of requiring more explicit CoEs.

It looks like you're ruling based on what the rules /should/ say,
rather than what they actually /do/ say. That makes your ruling less
useful than it could be, because it raises the chance that the ruling
doesn't actually match the reality.

If you think that it's important that the rules are interpreted a
certain way, it's best to write a proposal in order to make them more


Reply via email to