On Sun, 2017-10-15 at 00:07 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Another worrying thought: if we a judge decides that the later
> definition should inform what the proposal considers to be a
> “contract,” and there’s some bug with the “contract-as-textual-
> documents” thing that causes rules to be considered contracts…
It crosses my mind that the main advantage of banning changes to
multiple rules in the same proposal without stating which order the
changes happen in is precisely so that "repeal all rules" won't work,
even if you do it by mistake. In that case, perhaps we should make it
clearer that that's how the restriction works (as there's a perverse-
ish reading of rule 105 that it imposes an order on attempted
simultaneous changes, rather than halting changes with no order
specified.
Proto:
In rule 105, replace:
{{{
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.
}}}
with
{{{
A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
It is not possible to for multiple rule changes to occur
simultaneously; any attempt to cause multiple rule changes
without a statement of the order in which those changes should
be made will have no effect and none of the changes will occur.
Such a statement can be implicit in the order in which the
changes are specified, so long as there is only one plausible
possibility for the ordering.
}}}
[I considered an MMI IMPOSSIBLE, but I think the natural-language
phrase works better in case the rules somehow change as a consequence
of something other than an action.]
Note that this restriction doesn't block Ruleset ratification; it
attempts to but doesn't have enough Power.
--
ais523
