Ah, missed the definition. That's scary. I'd prefer we just play with the ruleset as is and pick up the pieces.
On Sat, Feb 24, 2018, 22:13 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
