On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 7:56 AM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Argument: Rule 1551 is an instrument, and a therefore rule 105 allows it
> to make rules changes where permitted by rules other than rule 105, and
> rule 1551 permits itself to make changes. (Note that there is no
> 'explicitly' involved here.)
Good point.
However, I'm still a bit unclear on Rule 1551's:
the ratification of a
public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel
any messages or actions
To me this says that the ratification of a ruleset that's missing the
effects of the message wherein the Assessor resolved the decision to
adopt a proposal doesn't cancel the effects of that resolution, so the
proposal still has its effect. On the other hand, it also seems to
say that ratification is completely useless since the rule seems to
contradict itself; if the effects of actions on the gamestate that
weren't recorded aren't invalidated by the ratification of the
document that failed to record them, then ratification necessarily
can't actually change the gamestate. Game custom indicates that this
is a faulty interpretation of the rule, but I don't see any other
reason for Rule 1551 to basically explicitly disclaim its own purpose.
