An alternative is: "Change the gamestate [including the ruleset] to what it would have been if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and if no further changes had been made to Rule 2124 since. Designate this change as a convergence." I believe this would allow the Rulekeepor to present a convenient legal fiction in the FLR, provided e also recorded the fact that a convergence occurred.
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, February 18, 2019 4:34 PM, D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this: > > The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the > following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied > with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text > of what Rule 2124 was at that time. > > Rule 2124 is amended as follows: [amended text] > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > > > On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect > > > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been > > > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now > > > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this > > > proposal as part of the gamestate.) > > > > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR? > > Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical > > annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given > > that they were important to figuring this out just now!) > > And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the > > "any ambiguity" standards of R105?
