Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two
>entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self-
>reference alert: is a Rule a Rules-defined entity?)
Interesting.
The rules do regulate some aspects of rules, but don't outright define
them. There'
Goethe wrote:
Zefram wrote:
This did not cause any rule to acquire a number
previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two
entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self-
reference alert: is a R
Zefram wrote:
This did not cause any rule to acquire a number
previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here.
It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two
entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self-
reference alert: is a Rule a Rules-def
Ed Murphy wrote:
>Proto: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Rulekeepor shall
>annotate Rule 105 with .
I maintain that an explicitly historical document is the place for that.
There are a great many rules that I recall playing under that have now
been repealed, and I feel a sense of loss in
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created,
>"amending" had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the
>instant before)
Not true. The new 105 was created (as 2131) under the auspices of the
old 105. When the new 105 was modified, that
Goethe wrote:
I'd suggest the following record for R105:
History:
Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (Ge
Zefram wrote:
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
"the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended".
Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't
involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment nu
On 3/22/07, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Amendment numbers were repealed? That must have snuck by us. Should we
bring it back?
When were amendment numbers ever defined? It must be at least several
years since they were.
--
Michael Slone
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I would disagree
>with Zefram's choice, and follow the old regulation governing
>amendments,
As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was
"the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended".
Benjamin Schultz wrote:
>Amendment numbers were repealed? That must have snuck by us. Should
>we bring it back?
I don't think there's any need for them to be defined in the rules.
The rules never *did* anything with them.
-zefram
OscarMeyr wrote:
Amendment numbers were repealed? That must have snuck by us. Should
we bring it back?
I repealed it on purpose, specifically for situations like this: to
wit, we have a strong enough tradition that we can leave "amendement
numbers" to the discretion of the Rulekeepor. I wo
On Mar 22, 2007, at 9:13 AM, Zefram wrote:
Amend the rule titled "Fantasy Rule Changes" to have number 105,
As amendment numbers are no longer defined by the rules, I've decided
that this renumbering did not change the amendment number. That
is, Rule
2131/0 became Rule 105/0, despite the
12 matches
Mail list logo
