Both of my drafts used the same definition. Cobb’s version did switch to another one.
Gaelan > On Dec 29, 2019, at 4:48 PM, omd via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> So, starting with a trivial case, I think it’s pretty clear that a player >> registering does not constitute a “change in the ruleset,” even though it >> affects the functioning of rules with regard to that person. My goal was >> word the rule such that it under the same case. However, an argument could >> be made that the change here is somehow more “fundamental” because it >> affects the relationship between rules themselves, and therefore is a rule >> change. > > I'd tend to agree that changing That One Rule would not be a "change > to the ruleset". Though I think the original definition of That One > Rule is slightly better, because it avoids a gamestate "change" > entirely, in favor of something that's more of a change in real-world > state (the act of announcing that something is The One).
