While doing research for this proposal, I realized that we have some kind of inconsistency:

Some of the species in the Rule “Species” are part of the rule “Species”, some of them are Subrules. There’s no way to distinguish between them other than looking through some months of archive to see how they were introduced.

We should straighten that out, I think.

Better do so then. I don’t think species in subrules are valid species.

A quick search in the Rules did not find any proper definition of “Subrule”. Is it just me or does nomic collapse under this?

If I remember correctly, many many Proposals in the time that I am playing used the wording “Subrule”. (Create a Subrule, change this Subrule, Ammend the Subrule). What does it mean if “Subrule” is not defined? Do we have to cancel everything since - eh, well, since when?

On the other hand, with no other definition of “Subrule”, if a species was created as a “Subrule” of the rule “Species”, it should be valid. As best as I can tell, it is part of the Rule “Species”.

I will make a draft for a proper “Subrule”-Definition. :-/

I’ve always assumed that the standard English usage of the word was sufficient here, so I doubt the absence of a definition breaks anything, but it couldn’t hurt to specify the meaning more clearly, I guess.

I agree with PB. In the absence of a ruleset definition, the english usage is used.

trivial

trivial