On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > Even if the order of changes isn't ambiguous (because it doesn't matter), > "every instance" may be R105 ambiguous. Is it "every instance" that the > submitter is aware of? The Rulekeepor? What if there's an instance in > the "true" ruleset that's not in the current SLR and FLR due to errors?
Every instance in the true ruleset. I don't think this creates ambiguity, any more than "amend rule X by replacing 'A' with 'B'" might have unexpected effects if the Rulekeepor is wrong about the text of rule X. That is, assuming "ruleset" is unambiguous. Is it gloss for "information required to be in a published ruleset"? If so, does it include category names (SLR, arguably) and proposal author names (FLR)? I suppose it has a customary definition independent of R1681, of "all rules", but does that include rule titles? If so, contrary to my recordkeeping, the "point" bit also included multiple rule changes due to Rule 2433 (Point Transfers). As to the main argument, I'll just say: making rule changes succeed or fail based on whether applying those particular changes in a different order could have a substantive effect on the gamestate, rather than having a general rule about bulk changes, puts a fair amount of onus on the Rulekeepor.
