" what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from everybody set to resolve tomorrow?"
This works. AIS did it to fix the "without objection" thing. "Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover that ratification itself has no effect?" We change the rules so it does have effect, fixing whatever loophole, and then we ratify the old gamestate into existence. On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 3:13 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote: > I’m curious about the RWO “no rule changes thing.” It says something along > the lines of “RWO can’t cause a rule change.” That obviously bans direct rule > changes, but what about RWO’ing into existence a proposal with FOR votes from > everybody set to resolve tomorrow? If that doesn’t work, what level of > indirect cause and effect do we have to reach for it to be legal? Giving > shinies that are later spent to pend? Ratifications that for whatever reason > cause a player to think of an idea for a rule? > > Even scarier question: what happens to the gamestate if we discover that > ratification itself has no effect? > > Gaelan > >> On Sep 27, 2017, at 7:46 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2017-09-27 at 18:18 +1000, VJ Rada wrote: >>> An agency has been listed for a long time called "G is Overlord of >>> Dunce". Is is a verb, so that agency is clearly not an agency. The >>> problem? That agency was used months ago (like...May) to create >>> another agency, which was used to pend a proposal! >> >> The existence of a proposal is automatically ratified seven days after >> it resolves as ADOPTED. (If the proposal gets REJECTED, it doesn't >> really matter whether it existed or not.) So it's unlikely that this >> can cause damage to the ruleset. >> >> If it did, RWO won't save you; you can't change the ruleset via RWO. >> >> -- >> ais523 -- >From V.J. Rada
