Talk:318
From Nomicapolis
(Difference between revisions)
(→Debate) |
Simulacrum (Talk | contribs) (→Debate) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
True, this only fixes number change problems, it doesn't fix number deletion problems. Anybody have a logical way to do that automatically by rule? I could add it on here...[[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 22:37, 16 November 2006 (EST) | True, this only fixes number change problems, it doesn't fix number deletion problems. Anybody have a logical way to do that automatically by rule? I could add it on here...[[User:Applejuicefool|Applejuicefool]] 22:37, 16 November 2006 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | So if rule A defers to rule B and rule B is amended to Rule C, then Rule A would defer to rule C as a result? --[[User:Simulacrum|Simulacrum]] 01:10, 18 November 2006 (EST) | ||
<!--END DEBATE--> | <!--END DEBATE--> | ||
Revision as of 06:10, 18 November 2006
Contents |
Proposer's summary and declarations
This should fix future number change problems.
Debate
So what would happen if someone repealed a rule that was referenced in another rule? Such as the reference to rule 105 which was transmuted and later repealed in rule 306. I suppose in that case it could just be deleted, but what if 104 is also transmuted and repealed? --Dayd 21:37, 16 November 2006 (EST)
True, this only fixes number change problems, it doesn't fix number deletion problems. Anybody have a logical way to do that automatically by rule? I could add it on here...Applejuicefool 22:37, 16 November 2006 (EST)
So if rule A defers to rule B and rule B is amended to Rule C, then Rule A would defer to rule C as a result? --Simulacrum 01:10, 18 November 2006 (EST)
Vote
For
Against
