On 7/5/2020 5:22 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 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.
Fair enough. >> 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. This is a good point - in particular, I remember considering the proposal that added that ability to Blots - quite recently - and remember asking "this seems like a weird power and prone to abuse" and there was a brief discussion about why it was being done. Don't remember if that was during voting or beforehand. Anyway, you're right, it seems worth addressing how legislative intent works or is inferred when creating one thing (accidentally but directly) breaks another. -G.
