On Sun, 2017-07-09 at 09:54 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I checked the proposal history. There has been a time where Switches had > higher Power than Offices, making its switch not a switch, ergo, there have > been no Officeholders since (Possibly?).
Why would Switches having a higher power than Offices prevent offices being switches? Defining a switch isn't secured. [snip] > - From the 2nd of August onwards, we have been in a state were there have > been no Officeholders, because Switches need a default, and Officeholders > had none, so it wasn't a switch. Proposal 5133, which would've solved the > problem, actually hasn't been enacted - because there need to be Office(s) > to do so (The Assesor, Promotor, etc). We didn't have the Anti-Ossification > rules to prevent this either (and if they did, then Proposal 5111 would've > actually never done anything, and we have never actually had our modern > Switches) Oh, I see. I'm nonetheless not convinced that a rule attempting to define a switch in an invalid way is incapable of creating a tracked piece of gamestate, though, even if it isn't technically a switch. > Non-Proposal (and Non-Office dependent rule-changes in general, really) > Rule-changes aside, the Ruleset hasn't actually changed since the 2nd of > August 2007. You're missing rule 2034, which is a really long-standing protection against this sort of thing happening, and has been around for *ages* (since 2002). Among other things, it handles precisely the case that we're mistaken about the identity of the Assessor. In particular, if everyone believes that a given player is the Assessor, that player can legally assess proposal decisions (as nobody will object to it), even if the player is not in fact the Assessor or there is no Assessor (or the concept of the Assessor is undefined). In terms of the messages elsethread about Ruleset ratification: it works under the current ruleset (but only via proposal), but I'm not 100% sure it worked under all previous rulesets. (Also, on a related subject, please confine any Ruleset ratifications to ratifying the SLR, not the FLR; ratifying the latter can potentially force the Rulekeepor to record an incorrect version of history, which isn't very useful, whereas ratifying the former allows for an honest notation of any changes that were made.) -- ais523
