On 01/13/2010 08:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
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.
Adding a precedence clause would still leave it vulnerable to rules with
lesser IDs.
-coppro
