On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:31 -0500, omd wrote: > I'd cite a concrete example, but I can't think of a lot of deliberate > loopholes that actually made it into the ruleset and got exploited. > The Rule 106 "explicit changes" thing was one, but I think ais523 > wouldn't agree with me that that was an awful proposal with or without > the scam, so I won't comment ;)
You should note that the vast majority of my scam proposals are deliberate attempts to improve the ruleset overall; they just insert a loophole at the same time. I honestly think that the new wording of rule 106 was better, other than the loophole. (The loophole in question, incidentally, was originally there by accident; but I noticed it before I submitted the proposal and decided to leave it in deliberately.) -- ais523
