Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:Create a new Rule, at Power=4, titled "Spectator", with the text: Any person CAN and may at any time by observing this rule make any change whatsoever to the gamestate, including but not limited to enacting, repealing, or amending a rule.This rule takes precedence over all other rules.Well, that's one way to make the Assessor into the Emperor. -Goethe
Hmmm, I might have an idea what can happen here (with this or comex's proposal).
The recent voting results and self-ratification of those results I think concluded that voting results self ratify, even if not published by the assessor.
So, I could publish voting results for the above proposal, and those results would self ratify one week later. This can be challenged by a claim of error (which can be denied with no reasoning required), or an inquiry case.
Is there a hole in that the inquiry case may (esp., considering the appeals process) take longer than a week to resolve? Is the rule explicit enough about the document not self-ratifying if an inquiry case is in progress? Or, I could agrue that the inquiry case did not 'explicitly and publicly challenge' the document, or that the 'scope and nature of the perceived error' was not defined?
Another possible hole is that in response to a claim of error, the publisher of the document (which would be the scammer, not the assessor), can post a revision. Does the revision self ratify one week after the publication of the orginal document, or of the publication of the revsion?
Just some thoughts. Levi
