On Jul 19, 2013, at 4:41 PM, omd wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote: >> Hm, this seems like it could be scammed. If a rule of power 1.1 were >> enacted, stating, "A proposal with power greater than 1 CANNOT apply any >> changes", then Rule 106 would follow this instruction, thereby preventing >> proposals with greater power from taking effect. > > Thus "Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change". > I interpret categorically preventing a proposal from making changes as > preventing it from taking effect (however, I think the sneaky tricks > my Wisconsin proposal would play would be able to get around this - > timing attacks are fun.)
I don't think this interpretation is consistent with the text of Rule 106. The rule states that *when* a proposal takes effect, the changes it specifies are applied; this seems to imply that the event of a proposal taking effect is a distinct event from the event of the changes being applied. —Machiavelli
