Amusingly, there was previously text that said winning was Secured, which
would have implied that Instruments such as proposals (with the correct
power) would have worked. It was removed to make winning more permissive
for lower-powered rules. This was removed in Sept 2016, so maybe winning-
by proposal hasn't worked since then!
On that note: Patent Titles don't automatically ratify. Someone deleted
the "last [manual] ratification" date from the Herald's Report so I don't
know how long ago any uncertainty there would go back.
On Fri, 12 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
>
