> On May 2, 2026, at 5:55 PM, Mischief via agora-discussion > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/2/26 2:42 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: >>> 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 neither of them are repealed.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. > > > If it ends up being a R217 determination, it could be one possible outcome > > -- > Mischief > Collar, Collector, Executor, Speaker > Hat: steampunk hat
Maybe this is a naive suggestion, but could we not assume that, if not otherwise specified, an attempt to change multiple rules does so in numerical order? There's no explicit support for that in the text of the rules, but the rules do in fact have a canonical order, and it does not seem like too much of a stretch to interpret that as a common sense default. On the other hand, it's probably not what Mischief intended. - Galle
