Oh gosh, I'd completely forgot about that. If anyone else forgets the context,
Rule 105 said (and still says) that "A repealed rule... MUST be reenacted with
the same ID number" - i.e. all repealed rules are guilty of not being reenacted.
If nobody's up for rephrasing it, I think we should at le
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 23:01, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> Also, CFJ: "Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105." This is not really
> relevant in the scheme of things, I just want it to show up in G.'s CFJ
> history to bewilder future historians.
Did this ever get judged? I can't find any more
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:16 AM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> So, under this language if you believe no rule violation occurred, I think
> you MUST declare shenanigans. Right?
Yes, and I did!
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 12:27 AM, D. Margaux
wrote:
> Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s bo
Wait... hmm... so you’re saying it’s both shenanigans and you’re imposing a
fine for it? Can you do that? Weird!
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>
>> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred. Therefo
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> In this case, I believed no rule violation occurred. Therefore I COULD, and
> did, announce Shenanigans regardless of whether or not a rule violation
> actually occurred, and doing so discharged my obligations under R2478. (It is
>
> On Feb 13, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> Neither of these interpretations imposes any obligation on any player to
> re-enact repealed rules. Therefore, for each player other than Gaelan, I
> announce the below-quoted Pointing of Gaelan's Finger at that player to be
> Shen
6 matches
Mail list logo
