|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jun 30, 2020 16:42:11 GMT
Currently the rule states that all parts must stand independently. I think we all agree that the three trades, taken as a whole, should be fair and should be judged holistically.
I would propose we update the rule, retroactive to include Trade #672, to make review of 3way trades holistic, rather than based on each individual component standing up to scrutiny.
Vote yes if you agree.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 16:43:24 GMT
of course
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2020 16:46:39 GMT
they are posted in one thread with one number therefore its one trade
|
|
|
|
Post by eric on Jun 30, 2020 19:32:24 GMT
there are no retroactive rule changes
i am open to changing the rule going forward
|
|
|
|
Post by Druce on Jun 30, 2020 20:35:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 👨🏼⚕️delapandemic🚑 on Jun 30, 2020 20:37:29 GMT
there are no retroactive rule changes i am open to changing the rule going forward It certainly appears that we have unanimity to retroactively apply the change. Do we have “no retroactive changes” in the law/rules anywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by wee2dee on Jun 30, 2020 20:41:18 GMT
Eric Mountain Landis opening this thread  |
|
|
|
Post by killybing on Jun 30, 2020 21:12:07 GMT
there are no retroactive rule changes i am open to changing the rule going forward It certainly appears that we have unanimity to retroactively apply the change. Do we have “no retroactive changes” in the law/rules anywhere? Contents of the post and poll don't align I change my vote because I don't agree with retroactive rule changes but do agree moving forward |
|
|
|
Post by skrouse on Jul 1, 2020 0:14:12 GMT
Though I don't like the outcome, eric is being very consistent, so kudos.
Glad we're making a change, won't be applied much but i think it's a good adjustment.
|
|
