On 5/9/2019 8:21 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@uw.edu> wrote:
>>
>> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up
>> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants
>> to bring it back?
>
> I agree it’s probably not an improvement. I mostly wrote it up this way
> because I’m curious to know whether this Rube Goldberg repeal mechanism
> would actually work as intended.
I completely agree that I was intrigued by the mechanism for the sake of
the mechanism :)
I don't see why it wouldn't work. Some minor edits:
- Under the "these rules are suspended" clauses I'd add a "rules to the
contrary notwithstanding" to make it clear it's claiming precedence in
a conflict.
- "Automatic rules repeals" are a little dangerous because
if there's uncertainty as to the conditions the ruleset may change
automagically without visible trace. It's generally better to tie ruleset
changes to a required statement of change that can be hunted up in
the lists, and even better practice if there's a bit of a warning in
case someone wants to point out an error in the permitting conditions,
e.g.:
"[When both systems have been revived], any player can cause this rule
to repeal itself with Notice".
