On Wed, 13 Jan 2010, Sean Hunt wrote:> On 01/13/2010 08:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> It depend on what "minimally alters" in the game state to cause >> ratification. >> Accepting a false voting report alters the resulting value of votes, which >> is >> in a common-sense legal sense is the same as altering votes, which is >> against both R208 and the second, precedence-claiming paragraph of R2034. >> > > My interpretation is that while it fails to change the outcome or the > validity > of the resolution, it does cause the effects that would have occurred had > that > resolution been correct.
But if this can be done over/outside precedence claims, wouldn't it mean that any (power-1) rule could do anything at all by saying "It doesn't actually do X, but causes the effects to to occur as if X happened." Increasing the power to 3.1 would fix, so would a simple "this rule claims precedence..." claim. -G.
