On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 17:40 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Wed, 9 Feb 2011, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > So, empowered by R106, which now conflicts with and numerically > > overrules R2140 and R1688, a Proposal CAN (since November-2009) make > > gamestate changes regardless of its power versus the secured Power of > > the change. > > Complete radio silence after a judgement that we need a year-back > recalculation? We are dead. Again.
It's not as bad recalculation-wise as it looks. The rule's wording was originally entirely intended to make arbitrary proposals work at any power, as part of a scam; the only new information here is that the proposal that was intended to fix the deliberate loophole didn't. As I knew of the loophole in advance (because I put it there), I was keeping an eye out for proposals that would have failed due to low AI, although I stopped after the "fix". It also turns out that proposals with insufficient AI to gain enough power to make changes (under a hypothetical working version of the rule) aren't very common anyway. I suspect a recalculation wouldn't make huge changes. -- ais523
