On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> Mm, why? If a proposal said "destroy all cards", why can't Rule 1551 >> destroy all cards? > > Actually I'm not sure the argument works anyway. If something claims > to set the adoption-state of a proposal, but fails (as ratification does), > it doesn't make sense to pick and choose the individual pieces of the > proposal and say that those parts worked. It either succeeded or > failed in making the proposal become adopted. If it failed, none > of the effects of adopting the proposal took place.
Well, for fear of reiterating the same argument-- A document is ratified that purports to adopt Proposal X. | BEGIN HYPOTHETICAL | "such a proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect" -R2034. The latter two points contradict various rules but this is just a hypothetical. | Proposal X enacts Rule 1234. | Proposal X destroys all Cards. | END HYPOTHETICAL The gamestate change (difference between the hypothetical resultant gamestate and the current gamestate) is: + There is a new Rule 1234. + All the cards are gone. The minimum modification of the gamestate to achieve the hypothetical one is, then: - Enact a new Rule 1234. - Destroy all cards. which is, coincidentally, the same as the modification the proposal would make if it were adopted; but the proposal was _not_ adopted and did _not_ take effect. These changes were made by Rule 1551 directly. -- -c.
