Thudd Kassel Contract Issue

[37thchamber]

I think we disagree on the validity of the transaction.

do we?



in the absence of a veto, it would appear that we agree the transaction was therefore allowed, as it was not judged to have violated a rule. this is tacit approval at the very least. as i already stated, if a problem was identified, all that was necessary was for HO to say "hold up... we gotta discuss this"

and this is literally the crux of my argument.

a transaction that, as far as I can see, was accepted (tacitly, through a lack of opposition) -- and therefore implicitly validated, and so cannot be considered illegal -- was later altered unilaterally by HO. this should not happen.

unless there is a clear error in the approval of the transaction (for example, when carmel gibson was approved with incorrect TPE totals) -- which does not exist in this case, given the debatable interpretation of the rule as written -- the transaction should not be altered. fix the rule and apply it moving forward.

that the ruling was made within a couple of days is irrelevant, as in the absence of an announcement to the contrary, the transaction was accepted, and therefore the rule should only be applied as written.

at the very least, the lack of transparency here is concerning.

at worst, we are accepting that HO may, at their discretion, alter the rulebook on the fly and retroactively apply the changes.