Alright, this is a bit terrifying, but it's reasonably clean, and
should catch all of the problems brought up so far, as well as any
others of the same class. It involves a large amount of dark magic
unfortunately, including a nested hypothetical (hence the title), but
it's better than the alternatives that I can think of:
- manually patching each error (and possibly missing some);
- worrying about having an inconsistent gamestate for an
infinitesimal period, as we would if we just retroactively redid the
proposal "as if" it worked; or
- undoing everything and starting over, potentially invalidating ~1
week's gameplay.
This is v1. I expect to make revisions.
Fix procedure (to be passed by proposal): {{
Amend Rule 105 by removing the sentence "Rule changes always occur
sequentially, never simultaneously." [Generally, an important safety
measure. In this case, it gets in the way of my fix. I could adopt
this as a rule above the power of that rule, but amending it out for a
little bit is simpler.]
For the purposes of the rest of this proposal:
- The "gamestate", includes the ruleset and all other parts of game itself;
- An "effect" refers only to an effect directly prescribed by the rules; and
- For something to "successfully" take effect is for it to have the
result implied by its text, taking into account the context of the
rules, but ignoring any rule that would directly block its action.
No effect of the rest of this proposal causes it to fail or become
non-existent or otherwise prevents it from successfully taking effect.
Set the gamestate (including the ruleset) to whatever it would now be
had every effect of Proposal 8014 been canceled and never occurred.
[The above vastly simplifies record-keeping. No need to reason about
what succeeded and what failed, because everything failed.]
Set the gamestate to whatever it would now be if, in the infinitesimal
period between the resolution of Proposal 8014 and the resolution of
Proposal 8015, the gamestate had been set to whatever it would have
been had Proposal 8014 successfully taken effect.
[This portion is based on the observation that all inconsistencies of
the proposal were internal to it, i.e. they did not persist after it's
adoption. We can figure out what the gamestate should be at the end,
presuming that they did indeed take effect. The problems are about
errors like a rule existing momentarily without text, or it being
unclear how many actions were being taken to get the rules into a
certain state. All problems were in the transition, which this
eliminates by setting everything all at once.]
Amend Rule 105 to be in the same state it was before the passage of
this proposal.
}}
-Aris
