On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> No, but it can enact the effects of the proposal _as if_ it were
>> adopted. This is how I've always interpreted it.
>
> And that's the whole bloody thing I'm arguing against. If you can change
> anything by saying "this doesn't conflict with Rule X, because we're
> acting AS IF it didn't" then all Power is broken, all Security is broken,
> and all Precedence is broken, because I can make a power-1 rule that says
> "We are hereby playing AS IF all those other rules don't matter".
Nope. If a proposal says {Enact a new Power-2 Rule}, normally the
proposal (a Power-2 instrument) would create the rule; if it was
ratified into "passing", the Power-3 ratification rule would create
the new rule itself. Technically I should write "Enacted by Rule
1551" rather than "Enacted by Proposal X", but otherwise it works. On
the other hand, if a Power-1 Rule tried to claim it acted "as if" the
proposal passed, it would be a Power-1 Rule attempting to enact a
Power-2 Rule, which is forbidden by Rule 105; thus it would fail.
There's no brokenness here: "act as if X" is only shorthand for "do
whatever would be done if X", which may be prevented by other rules
just like any other change.
--
-c.
