Michael Norrish wrote: > However, the 105/106 combination doesn't specify that accumulated > (judicial) decisions as to how rules should be interpreted can not be > changed by proposal. Again, I make the claim that these decisions are > clearly part of the game-state (they're even recorded in an officially > maintained document), so 106 explicitly says we can change them.
Right now, we are dealing with a proposal that choses between two reasonable interpretations of a rule. However, using this logic, you could make a change to the "game state" so that any reasonable observer would think that the game-state itself was against the rules. More egregious example, could be done at any AI: "Be it proclaimed that R101 shall be interpreted as if it named Goethe emperor and e was able to change rules at will." If allowed, this sets the gamestate to define the interpretation of the highest-power rule, so it then has precedence over the rule change mechanism. My position is that this scam is currently forbidden, in that proclamations are legislative orders, and can't order forbidden/ illegal gamestates (e.g. CFJ 1381), or at least can't order gamestates into conflict with rules of higher power than those governing legislative orders (a power-1 rule). -Goethe
