at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
<[email protected]> wrote:
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.
To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative
process.
Well, it’s not like the question is whether to rule “the scam is contrary
to intent, therefore it doesn’t work”. *That* would be a judicial
intrusion into the legislative process. But with Rule 2626, the question
is merely whether to allow certain proposals to enter the legislative
process without a fee. Since they still have to be voted on, I’d argue
that concerns about intrusion into the legislative process are at their
nadir.
Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to
the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to
create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages.
I'd say that adding the ability to create one’s own blots allowed Rule 2499
(Welcome Packages) to operate in a way contrary to legislative intent and
common sense, even if that rule was not actually amended at that point.
After all, even aside from the general legislative intent against scams,
Welcome Packages are clearly intended to be a limited resource rather than
an infinite spring of riches.
But even if we assume that Rule 2555 (Blots) is the one operating in a way
contrary, Rule 2626 doesn’t say that a patch proposal must therefore amend
Rule 2555. Regardless of which rule is at fault, “Welcome Package Patch”
did “rectify” the “situation", and arguably did so minimally, since any
other type of patch would probably have a larger impact on game mechanics.
