at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <[email protected]>
wrote:
So it does NOT meet the test in Rule 2626(1) on legislative intent (nor do
any of the other tests apply). It would be presumptuous, in this case, for
any judge or referee to overrule the legislature and find otherwise, when
every element of the overall "bug" was clearly functional and instituted
with legislative intent, and being used as intended.
In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is
clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so
in conjunction with other rules.
I disagree with such tunnel vision. Most of what I’d call bugs in the
ruleset involve a combination of rules, so from my perspective, your
interpretation of Rule 2626 comes close to reading “bug” out of the rule,
even if it leaves a tiny bit of room for “clearly malfunctioning text”.
Also, your judgement focuses on the “legislative intent” prong of Rule
2626(1), but lacks any mention of the other prong, “common sense”.
For legislative intent, there may be a case that, if nobody thought about
the interaction of that specific set of mechanics before passing the
relevant proposals, the legislature can’t have any real intent on the
matter. Though even then – why am I assuming nobody thought about it
(other than perhaps those involved in the scam)? Simply because if they
had, the proposals likely wouldn’t have passed. In other words, there is a
strong latent legislative intent not to create scammable mechanics, even if
it wasn’t applied to this specific situation.
But even if that doesn’t count as intent, such speculation about voters’
mental states is not needed to evaluate “common sense”. For that, we need
only consider what people (not necessarily voters) *would* think if asked
about this particular “way” that the rule “operate[s]”. And in this case,
allowing anyone to instantly gain unlimited Cards by being repeatedly
exiled is clearly a violation of common sense. It may not be entirely
clear which part of the scheme is the problem – which affects the question
of "minimal rectification” – but it’s clear that there is a problem, and
that’s enough to make the situation a Rule 2626 “bug”.
