Oh my. This is a nightmare, isn't it. Should we be RWOing something, or do we need to urgently pass a fix proposal?
-Aris On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > Oh, I forgot one thing I was going to say: Rule 105 has the restriction > > If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the > rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the > repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is > null and void. > > This seems like a possible can of worms to me, with a need to judge the > contents of every modified reenactment according to an unclear definition. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:52 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > > > > Here are my preliminary interpretations as Rulekeepor: > > > >> Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text > >>> reads, in full: > >> > >> This is written as if it were two rule changes, but doesn't specify the > >> original text before amendment. > >> > > > > I'm interpreting this as failing because it is ambiguous as to the text > of > > the rule when created, and interpreting it as creating a rule with the > > specified text is not a reasonable way to interpret it. > > > >> > >>> Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" with > >>> the text: > >> > >> How many rule changes is this, and what is their order? > >> > > > > Per Rule 105, re-enactment is permitted to amend a rule. It does not > allow > > for retitling a rule as part of re-enactment. Therefore I'm treating this > > as failing as well. > > > >> > >>> Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with > >>> the text: > >> > >> Ditto. > >> > > > > Ditto. > > > >> > >>> Replace all occurances of "shiny" and "shinies" in the ruleset with > >>> "coin" and "coins" respectively in ascending numerical order. > >> > >> Rule 2166 seems to have too high power for this, although it might > >> therefore be considered a bug that it mentions shinies at all. > >> > > > > Indeed. > > > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > > >
