I was thinking something more like "except as explicitly specified by
the asset's backing document", since restricting it to Instruments would
prevent a contract from destroying its own indestructible assets.
Jason Cobb
On 6/11/19 12:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 12:13 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:
I was suggesting a problem with G.'s suggested wording: "except as
described by a proposal or rule". I think with the current wording,
you're right, although it does prevent players from destroying eir
own blots, which is what the CFJ is about.
Why not just "except as described by an instrument"? That automatically
excludes unadopted proposals.
