On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some may, in certain circumstances, have a value that is not
> immediately discernible solely by taking the rules and some other
> subset of game state, and performing a calculation. This indicates to
> me that they are properly considered as game state and not
> definitions. In particular:
Gratuitous: This is similar to CFJs 2277-8, where there was a debate
over what happens when one rule provides a definition of a value in
terms of something else, and another purports to allow changing it;
due to a trivial outcome for the CFJ, I'm not sure that was ever
resolved. However, I believe, as I did then, that that constitutes a
redefinition of the value, in that case as N higher than it would
otherwise be, in this case as what the vote collector chose in case of
a tie, and whether the redefinition is in effect and its parameters
are in the gamestate. This does not apply to rubberstamp (not veto,
at least recently) changing the set of valid ballots, however, since
its wording is quite clearly a redefinition:
among the otherwise-valid votes on a decision that has been
Rubberstamped, only the first AGAINST vote per voter is valid.
