On 10/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The VC is pretty insignificant. (It's one of mine, isn't it, and I have > it iff CFJ 1711 is true? If that's the case and it's ultimately ruled > that I do have it, I'll donate it to pikhq.) More troublesome is that > proposals will have been adopted in a different order from what was > previously believed. I (still) haven't determined whether this makes > any difference to the text of any rules. If it does, we may have quite > a lot of game state to recalculate.
I just compared the adopted proposals among 5080-5087 against the adopted proposals among 5088-5106, and I found no differences in the ultimate text of any rule. All the proposals in question were adopted before ID numbers (proposal 5110), so I believe there would be no invalid rule number assignments. If 5110 had already taken effect, it could have been quite problematic; if any rules had been created with invalid ID numbers, then any subsequent changes to those rules that addressed them by number would have failed. This would have been the case for rules 2157 and 2158, subsequently amended by proposals 5134 and 5151. See, this is why strongly regulated ID numbers are bad. One of the delayed proposals was 5086, Zefram's large judicial reform proposal. I haven't attempted to determine whether there would be any effect on the status of any case from that period, or on the postures of the current judges. -root
