Re: [s-d] [s-b] Continued voting and a new emergency

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

0x44 wrote:

> On Mar 13, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> 
>> On 03/13/2010 07:11 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
>>> On 03/13/2010 04:28 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
>>>> If emergencies aren't broken, they aren't broken and we can fix the game
>>>> with one. If they are, then the previous emergency failed due to making
>>>> B not a nomic (? this might need checking, how did precedence work
>>>> then?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, Rule 31 would have stepped in at some point, but only on the rules
>>> required to make B a nomic. I'll sort through it after dinner.
>>>
>>> -coppro
>>
>> Actually, no. As long as Rule 123 existed, Rule 31 would be unable to
>> kick in. By the time Rule 123 was to be repealed, Rule 31 was already
>> repealed and so the Refresh Proposal succeeded in full.
> 
> That's problematic, as by our current ruleset Refresh Proposals are
> only "adopted", the effects specified within them do not take effect.
> If the BGoran rule 123 prevents the BGoran rule 31 from acting on the
> current ruleset, no changes to the gamestate can be made.

Surely "adopted" is implicitly defined as "takes effect", i.e. an
adopted proposal only fails to take effect if the rules explicitly
say so?
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss