That works nicely, because "the Rules" as a backing document already specifies how Proposals change things, so that's covered.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:52 AM Jason Cobb <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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, [email protected] 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. > >
