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