On Thu, 14 Jan 2010, comex wrote: > It's possible, but IMO a variable should be considered independent > only when necessary. In the case of adoption, it doesn't matter > because nothing depends on whether historical proposals were adopted,
It matters when you ask what precisely is being ratified in the current rules when ratification "causes" a change. > but a proposal should not be able to say > The submitter of Proposal 5967 is hereby changed to X. > > "Submitter" clearly refers to the action of submitting it, > not to the gamestate. Well, that's act-on-behalf or ratifying claims of identity out the window then (not that this is necessarily bad...). Anyway, there's no limitation in the ruleset on a proposal saying exactly this sort of thing! Whether it sets up the legal fiction or whether it fails due to "reality" reasserting itself - I think ais523 and I disagree on that; on the whole I'm not sure. -G.
