On 4/2/23 18:07, Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/2/23 15:03, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 4/2/23 17:13, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: >>> 8943 AGAINST >>> I don't want to give Janet some radiance >>> for something that hasn't gotten anyone >>> any radiance yet. >> Except you agree that it's broken? >> > Of course it's broken, yet no one has even exploited it yet. > What fun would it be if even this small act of chaos > cannot be exploited for the smallest of gains? > I wanted to use the sabotage stone on this... >:(
The issue has been identified and a patch has been written. Why would we allow the issue to be exploited and wait to patch it later? >>> 8944 AGAINST >>> I don't know what this does >>> or what problem it 'fixes' >>> and Janet doesn't need more radiance >>> for another radiance win. >> CFJ 4017. >> > My understanding is that CFJ 4017 ruled that > the rules text does in fact represent this > result, so this is a redundant proposal then? It clarifies the text and legislates the outcome. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
