You know the theory, you have the perfect juridical language.
Why not contribute to the rules directly? We spent several days working as a team and making that list of rules. Yet we are not sure that list is unexploitable, so we left the right to reject demos based on common sense etc. You dislike it, you say that's hole patching.
But as long as you don't provide your COMPLETE ruleset, your claims look like handwaving, don't get me wrong.
Feel free to create a google doc, maybe even based on the current one, and write down things (you have the knowledge and language, right?). Then we will join and examine your list with a fresh look. If your ruleset is better than the current one in all the aspects, I see no reason why we'd reject it.
No, there have always been players who claimed their route was legit while others didn't agree. Even Arcaon had an OB originating from a slope jump on dfwc2012-3. Reproduceable? Yes. Legit? No, it was against the rules that had been published before. It is validators' work to decide on player's correct/wrong interpretation of the rules. And that's why we suggested contacting validators in arguable cases. You can suggest something better, but please let it be a complete list of rules.khetti wrote:A records validity should be determinable before it's submitted.
A runs validity should be determinable before it's completed.
A routes validity should be determinable before it's attempted.