On 06/16/2011 12:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: >> On 06/16/2011 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: >>>> On 06/16/2011 10:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 15 Jun 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: >>>>>> [Disclaimer: I attempt this, but it may be ineffective for some >>>>>> reason that I haven't noticed.] >>>>>> >>>>>> As Speaker, I cause the (now Power=1) President to amend Rule 2344 >>>>>> (Anarchy) by appending this text: >>>>>> >>>>>> Murphy CAN cause this rule to make arbitrary rule changes >>>>>> by announcement. >>>>>> >>>>>> CFJ: Rule 2344 was amended in the same message that this case >>>>>> was initiated. >>>>>> >>>>>> Evidence: the above text. >>>>> >>>>> Gratuitous: R101(iv). >>>> >>>> Gratuitous: the Rule Change in question does not in itself impose any >>>> obligations on any person, so arguably we're not "bound by" the change >>>> even if it takes effect. >>> >>> Er, maybe in the old version you'd be right, but it's pretty explicit now: >>> For the purpose of protecting this right, a rule >>> change which would otherwise take effect without its >>> substance being subject to general player review through a >>> reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking >>> effect. >> >> This language does not specify time; the substance of the change was >> indeed "subject to general player review through a reasonably public >> process" via the same message in which it took effect. > > Oh that's just silly; there's no sense or precedent that, when someone > tries to do something by announcement, and the rules explicitly and > directly say it is "wholly prevented", that we informally twiddle > our thumbs until it's decided we've all read it. "Process" implies > something, well, a bit more than that. > > Not much more. With Notice would do. Oddly, it's similar to your > "message" question (a "review process" can be set up going forwards, > before a change is made, but not backwards!) > > Or are you saying that every time someone tries to do something and > fails, it sets up a timer so that it automatically happens if it > later becomes permissible? Because that's a fairly straightforward > extrapolation of what you're arguing here.
No, no timers. I'm saying that the cutoff for publicity should be that the players are informed of the change no later than in the same message in which the change occurs. If a Rule Change somehow tried to happen secretly, without an announcement (or with an announcement along the lines of "I take the actions specified in the unpublished document with hash 123abc"), then the public-review requirement would block it. Publishing the substance of the change, however, should be sufficient to allow "general player review".
