More generally, have we ever done a true retroactive rule change that
overwrites known rules history?
I'm wondering about a slight wording change to side-step making true
retroactive rules changes: The rule is amended going forward, but "the rest
of the gamestate" is set to what it would have been had this been the text
all along. Or am I being overly-paranoid here?
On 2/18/2019 8:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook
wrote:>> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken
effect>> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had
been>> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is
now>> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this>>
proposal as part of the gamestate.)> > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone)
comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?> Will we lose amendment
numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical> annotations if we "set the
gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given> that they were important to
figuring this out just now!)> > And are there any side issues like this
unclear enough to run against the> "any ambiguity" standards of R105?
