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.

Reply via email to