How about a rule to this effect: “A Convergence is a change to the gamestate designed to resolve ambiguity in the current state. [Maybe: Causing a change to the gamestate to be considered a Convergence is protected at power 3. A player may cause a gamestate change to be considered a Convergence with 3 Agoran Consent.] When officeholders are required to provide historical information, they NEED NOT accurately document the changes leading up to or during the Convergence accurately, but SHALL note that the Convergence occurred.”
The wording is a bit awkward, but I think this would come in handy now as well as in the future. Gaelan > On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Aris Merchant > <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> > wrote: > >> On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 00:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: >>> Okay, everyone, here's a revised patch. Please point out any other >>> issues you see. All changes more significant than a typo fix have >>> been moved to a new section for reader's convenience . Gaelan, some >>> version of this will be in this week's distribution, so you can >>> withdraw your original. >> [snip] >>> The Rulekeepor MAY list historical annotations for changes made by >>> the following portion of this proposal (until the text “END CLEANUP”) >>> however e wishes, including incorrectly or not at all. >> >> I'm not convinced this actually works legally. You may need to create a >> temporary rule for the purpose. > > > I personally agree with you. How about "The Rulekeepor SHOULD NOT be > punished for listing...". That makes it clear that it's non-binding > meta-game guidance. Of course, actual codification would be preferable, but > I agree with other commenters that it's impractical. > > -Aris > >>
