On 5/2/26 10:53, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 4/28/26 2:49 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote: >> ais523 wrote: >>> CFJ: If proposal 9336 is enacted at a time when there are two rules it >>> could repeal that each contain "Janet" or "ais523" in their body, >>> neither of them are repealed. >> This is CFJ 4147. I assign it to Murphy. >> >> Original CFJ and caller's arguments: >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2026-April/055482.html >> >> ~qenya > > Semi-gratuitous argument: one possible place to draw the line would be > whether or not the order of repeals matters. For example, we can imagine a > proposal that would repeal three rules, but all six possible orderings lead > to the same game state (other than the trivial difference of the order of > repeals in that particular instant). >
There doesn't seem to be any support for this in the text of the rule? For something as fundamental of rule changes, it doesn't seem like a good idea for a judge to just read something like that into the rules. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
