G. wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Edward Murphy wrote:
omd wrote:
Proposal 7701 (AI=2) by Henri
Credits
Replace every instance of the word "points" in the ruleset
excluding the instances of the word "points" in Rule 1023 (Common
Definitions) with "credits".
Fails due to lack of specified order.
CFJ, disqualifying omd: The adoption of Proposal 7701 replaced at
least two instances of the word "points" in the ruleset with "credits".
Caller's arguments: Rule 105 (Rule Changes) says
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
and
Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
change to be void and without effect.
However, the order of changes is arguably not an ambiguity in the
specification of a rule change, merely an ambiguity in the specification
of a set of rule changes. There is no obvious substantive difference in
the overall effect on the gamestate from applying these rule changes in
one order versus another; in particular, note that Rule 2420 defines
"score" as a switch and "points" as shorthand for flipping that switch,
rather than defining "points" as a currency. (Also note that scores
were not zeroed out until the adoption of Proposal 7703 later in the
same message, though that's not obviously relevant either.)
Gratuitous arguments:
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?
In a previous asset system, asset transfer specifications (then) had
to be as exactly specified as R105 says rule changes must be now.
Under those rules, it was found that "I transfer all my assets to the
bank" was ambiguous because it did not specify which assets were part
of "all".
I'm pretty sure we've allowed "every instance in ascending order of
rule number" before, though it may have just been papered over by
ratification at some point.
