On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > The previous version of poor rule 112, much vandalised and abused over its > sorry existence, extends the game to allow the final proposals to resolve, > and in any case, it didn't actually end the game
Ah, my mistake. > Was your vote on 363 a deliberate misvote? Does it matter? No... it was a mistake. > Okay, the big question, 364. It affects more than the final scores, it > affects whether the surviving player with the most points won, or whether > the old-timers jointly won. (_Surviving_ player, if that's where you're > going with this... proposal 363 failed. No matter what, you lose.) It also > affects whether the game is formally over, or just "frozen" until next year, > though likely nobody cares. As I see it, according to the ruleset and your ruling about amending rules that were immutable at the time of submission, the rule to amend and proposed amendment are identified at the time of submission. Both of the submissions you quoted are consistent with that idea: Walker's might have been submitted with the idea that the rule would be identified at the time of resolution, but it can easily be read as an indirect reference effective immediately, and it was submitted before that ruling in any case. However, Steve's wording, > I submit the following Proposal: > > === > If there is exactly one Rule which was initially numbered 112, then that > Rule is amended to Read: clearly puts the conditional within the proposal, rather than the proposal within the conditional - which would make little sense anyway, as the condition was surely true at the time of submission.
