RWOs can’t cause rule changes, which makes this challenging. Gaelan
> On Feb 24, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Oh my. This is a nightmare, isn't it. Should we be RWOing something, or do > we need to urgently pass a fix proposal? > > -Aris > > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: > >> Oh, I forgot one thing I was going to say: Rule 105 has the restriction >> >> If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the >> rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the >> repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is >> null and void. >> >> This seems like a possible can of worms to me, with a need to judge the >> contents of every modified reenactment according to an unclear definition. >> >> Greetings, >> Ørjan. >> >> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:52 Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> >>> >>> Here are my preliminary interpretations as Rulekeepor: >>> >>>> Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text >>>>> reads, in full: >>>> >>>> This is written as if it were two rule changes, but doesn't specify the >>>> original text before amendment. >>>> >>> >>> I'm interpreting this as failing because it is ambiguous as to the text >> of >>> the rule when created, and interpreting it as creating a rule with the >>> specified text is not a reasonable way to interpret it. >>> >>>> >>>>> Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" with >>>>> the text: >>>> >>>> How many rule changes is this, and what is their order? >>>> >>> >>> Per Rule 105, re-enactment is permitted to amend a rule. It does not >> allow >>> for retitling a rule as part of re-enactment. Therefore I'm treating this >>> as failing as well. >>> >>>> >>>>> Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with >>>>> the text: >>>> >>>> Ditto. >>>> >>> >>> Ditto. >>> >>>> >>>>> Replace all occurances of "shiny" and "shinies" in the ruleset with >>>>> "coin" and "coins" respectively in ascending numerical order. >>>> >>>> Rule 2166 seems to have too high power for this, although it might >>>> therefore be considered a bug that it mentions shinies at all. >>>> >>> >>> Indeed. >>> >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Ørjan. >>>> >>> >>
