Re: 196:13

From: Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) (jjweston_at_kenny.sir-toby.com)
Date: Thu Nov 21 2002 - 16:33:11 PST


On Fri, 22 Nov 2002, Steve Gardner wrote:

> Tieka, I'm confused again, about 2 different things. In declaring 196:11
> to be valid you said that that the requirement to mention the deeds of a
> past player in 196:9 did not apply because the rule was declared by
> valid by default (which was not the case; it was declared valid by
> Proposal).

I think you have Tieka's correct words, but not the correct meaning. When
Tieka declared 196:11 to be valid, the requirement to mention the deeds of
a past player did not apply because rule 196:11 became valid by default,
not because 196:9 was declared valid by default (which it didn't, as you
mentioned). There was a miscommunication about *which* rule was declared 
valid by default.

I believe that requirements specified in rules that are declared valid by 
default are still in place for future rules.

-- 
Jeff Weston (Sir Toby)

-- 
Rule Date: 2002-11-22 00:42:30 GMT


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 24 2011 - 10:48 PST