From: Aron Wall (aron_at_wall.org)
Date: Thu Dec 16 2004 - 10:30:45 PST
Aron Wall wrote: > Chuck Carroll wrote: > > > >Places restrictions on a past round (221). INVALID. > > > > Why would that invalidate the rule? > > > > Chuck > > Because a restriction on rules from a previous round implies that ones > rule has the power to restrict those rules, contradicting the R.O.'s. > Nor can one argue that the restriction is purely descriptive, rather > than restrictive, because the restriction was not in fact followed in > that past round. Therefore it seems to me that any rule which requires > rules in past rounds to do what they did not do is INVALID. > > Aron Wall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST