On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Alex Smith wrote:
> Thus, there were two intended ways to change the Province. Actions by
> players are (uncontroversially?) broken. Actions by the DM, which could
> substitute, are controversially broken, in that at least two scam
> attempts claim to have repealed the rule in question, but there is at
> least a reasonable viewpoint (e.g. Eritivus') that they both failed. If
> both scam attempts did fail, there is still a nonzero chance that the
> rule exists and is exploitable, in which case I want to hold onto the
> office to prevent anyone else exploiting it (and to exploit the
> remaining loopholes myself).
I'd say you could just get on and play in Discussion, and there's
enough players who have jumped in that a future ratification proposal
to ratify a snapshot report (when bugs & loopholes are gone)
would very likely pass.
