On 6/26/20 9:18 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I may have forgotten this case existed. > > Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety: > >> Rule 2221/7 (Power=3) >> Cleanliness >> >> Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or >> more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, >> and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in >> place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the >> rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person. > > > R. Lee's intent was: > >> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following >> inconsequential way: >> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read >> "Meep" > > > The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent > to clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid > because it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for > each rule. If the latter, it could potentially be construed as one > violation per enacted rule (of which there are 136)... > > That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered > readings is right. > > -- > Jason Cobb
On re-reading, these arguments aren't relevant to the judgement or whether the action would ossify (I'm sorry for derailing the thread), but they might affect how R. Lee will be punished. -- Jason Cobb
