On 1/29/2019 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh, you're right. I didn't realise that second condition was a thing, I > don't think there's been a proposal with AI < 1 since I registered.
I wondered if you missed that, it's pretty hidden and non-intuitive. There's really no benefit to having proposals with AI < 1, which is why you haven't seen them. There's sometimes a purpose to having Rules with Power < 1. Also, you asked before if the proposals would work? ITT they're broken in a trivially fixable way, because Rule Changes need to specify the order in which they occur - things like "All Rules are modified to X" don't work, but "All rules, in increasing numerical order, are modified to X" works - this is a fairly consistent CFJ interpretation of R105. (Because of the odd way in which the rule changes are applied here, a CFJ might have to wade through - "yes, these are rule changes as defined by R105. yes, R105 claims precedence over all rule changes so your claims of precedence need to be *above* power-3 to work - so yes, those precedents of interpreting R105 to require explicit rule change ordering apply.") -G.