That second clause may be unenactable: the “enacting admin must update a secretly tracked game variable that they can’t see, somehow” stuff recently was borderline, but “enacting admin must update a public variable according to secret variables they can’t see” seems plainly unperformable and would be skipped under “reaches a step which cannot be applied immediately”.

i imagine it wld be theoretically upholdable if i was to state someone’s non-compliance in advance of the proposal’s anyway bc non-compliance is a subjective metric anyway :‘o

*proposal’s passing, idk how that word got there

oh wait i see, i accidentally select-deleted the entire middle section >:T

the comment was supposed 2 read “i imagine it wld be theoretically upholdable if i was to state someone’s non-compliance in advance of the proposal’s passing, but in retrospect challenges would have been better to reference anyway bc non-compliance is a subjective metric”

per Kevan

now hold on– kevan was saying the second clause won’t do anything, but the first clause is still important. if one half of this proposal does nothing and the other half fixes a scam, why r yall voting against it?