On Sunday, August 4, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If you go back and do this, you will come across some edge cases, where > the rules are silent or inconsistent, where you must make some decision. > The decision you might make, however logical, might not be the decision > I might make, nor omd, Steve, Fool, or any particular person (or set of > collaborators). Even the places where you choose to decide might vary > depending on what you (versus others) might consider textually clear - > one would think that even a cursory read over the CFJ history would be > educational in this regard. >
In theory, Rule 217 should make the consensus platonically correct unless it blatantly contradicts the text. In practice, it might not actually stand up for 20 years, never mind the time before that wording existed and the likelihood of unambiguous pre-ratification errors that I was more concerned about. But even if it is a delusion, I just wouldn't be satisfied with an attempt to change the rules by consensus after some hypothetical game-breaker. Maybe if the resulting nomic had a different name (Agora: Foo, like a successor TV show? :) and a significantly revamped ruleset... but not just trudging on as if nothing had happened.
