On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Nonsense.
Yes, I thought it might be judged that way for the good of the game-- though the bug would be disastrous if judged to work. I transfer a prop from myself to coppro, by the way, for being the one to notice this in the first place. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that I can unilaterally avoid this sort of error in the future. If someone else can make that guarantee, let them be Rulekeepor; otherwise, Goethe, there is always the chance of an accidental, hard-to-catch difference between the ratified voting results and the published ruleset. Proposals that explicitly mention rule text might fail because the text is different; proposals that number paragraphs might delete important material. Of course, I'll always try my utmost to ensure the correctness of the ruleset, but I'm not convinced that ratification is such a bad idea. Luckily, ratifying a past ruleset mass-patches the game so that it was correct, even if we've been making invalid moves for a year, but even with the without-objection mechanism there have been cases (insufficiently powered dependent actions rule!) where ratification might subtly break and the proposal system is even more vulnerable. Or let's all post proposals as diffs.
