On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote:
> Proposal 6167 (Democratic, AI=3.0, Interest=1) by comex
> Foo
>
> Create a Power=3 Rule which reads: { comex CAN cause this rule to amend itself
> by announcement. }While I respect anyone has the right to do these things, I'm really bored of it, and it's crossed the line of "not currently worth my time to worry about" (aside from any obvious rules breakages performed during the course of it). If this has to do with the slight semantic holes that I noticed my recent judgements arguably might have created a barely-defensible exploit in the way some rules (e.g. ratification) interact with R106, my apologies. That particular exploit sinks if you wholly replace "takes(ing) effect" with "performs(ing) the actions specified in its text" in R106, instead of assuming that R106 now overrides all blockages. My judgement implies this replacement is correct in terms of definitions, there probably wouldn't be harm in legislating this replacement. -Goethe
