This is definitely "largely the same purpose". The original rule was 3
paragraphs, the new rule is the 2nd paragraph of the old rule verbatim
(except for changes in officer names). The missing paragraphs were the
added process (for the same purpose) that seemed unneeded. I'll fix the
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to
have “largely the same purpose” or something.
Yeah, that was changed to a SHOULD in the current version.
Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to have
“largely the same purpose” or something.
> On Jan 31, 2019, at 12:51 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to
> converge the gamestate when PAoaM
I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to
converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken.
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the
I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change,
If the referee is the main interested party, the caller need do nothing,
other than possibly barring the referee from being the judge using the
existing barring clause.
Still, the original rule actually had more process, and I streamlined it in
this submission, but I wasn't sure if I was
This seems like a good idea in principle, but as drafted I think it
opens up the possibility for abuse in cases where the Referee is an
interested party. What about a proposal that did the following -- (1)
permits the Arbitor to recuse emself, naming another willing player to
act as Arbitor,
Mail list logo