On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 7:09 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 22:02 Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 doesn't work at all as intended, I believe. 8014 did successfully take > effect. Not by the definition of successfully take effect given by the proposal, a few paragraphs up. > > In any case, I'm strongly opposed to this sort of papering over > difficulties with the rules. I think one of the most exciting parts of > Nomic gameplay is to deal with mistakes like this one, and simply trying to > paper over them as if they never happened is not at all something I am a > fan of. If that's the consensus, okay. I think it's a rather substantial improvement over pretending it didn't happen though (the platonic/pragmatic gamestate divergence makes me shudder). What would you prefer we did instead? -Aris
