My reading is that Rule 106 does it: “if the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question is adopted, and _unless other rules prevent it from taking effect_, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect.”
I don’t read 2449 as preventing it from taking effect: it says that a player wins when the Rules so provide, and here I think the Rule is 106 through the proposal adoption. But I’m happy to self-move to reconsider, especially if someone more learned in the Game than I am can point me to any relevant CFJ precedent or game practice. On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:05 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 2018-10-12 at 17:00 -0400, D. Margaux wrote: > > CFJ judged TRUE: “At least one person won the game as a result > > proposal 8097 taking effect.” > > Is it even possible to win the game by proposal? I don't see that > victory method listed in the ruleset, and rule 2449 implies that a > victory has to be caused by a rule. I guess you could make the argument > that rule 106 does it. > > (This is relevant because you'd think the rule for wins by legislation > would set out a clarity standard, like there is for rule changes, but > there isn't one, so there's no standard to consult.) > > Given how often people have been coming up with "win right away" > proposal minigames, and how many of them have been voted for, backfired > and ended up with everyone winning, it'd arguably be for the good of > Agora to put limits on wins by proposal (or on large simultaneous wins > in general). Wins are rather cheapened when large proportions of the > playerbase can get them by accident. > > -- > ais523 > >
