Quote Originally Posted by mini
1) if you want contradictionary edicts invalid, make a CA to add it to the rules. As logn as it's not forbidden, it is allowed. That's a worldwide fact.
As far as something being allowed if it's not forbidden, that's true. However, creating a house without a sponsoring praetor is forbidden in the rules. Edicts that contradict the rules are automatically invalid because they would break the rules.

What you're saying here is "unless the rules say we can't break the rules, we can break the rules". That is ridiculous.

Quote Originally Posted by mini
I propose to Mooks to do it as such. I myself have DONE NOTHING at this point, simply beyond stating that if he wants to have a chance, he should do it as such. I haven't proposed anything IC, ergo I have nto broken any rules nitwit.
Calling me names now, are you? That's... great. No, seriously, just stop that. It does no good.

As for the rest, I suggest you read what I said once more, because you'd then perhaps note that I haven't accused you of breaking any rule.

Quote Originally Posted by mini
Roman law has NUMEROUS occassions were older laws were looped around in new laws for specifik reason, without removing the older law or invalidating the new law. It was what distinguished the intelligent from the others, that they found loopholes around things that stood in their way of achieving their goal.
Current history isn't much better on that point. This PBM is not based on fantasy, but tries to relive history a little bit. Ergo we should act like it.
*Yawn*

The historic Romans' laws are completely irrelevant here. The game's rules are the ones we are obliged to follow, and if you want them to be more according to the historic laws, then you must make Charter Amendments first, and they must then be seconded and be voted for by the senate.