If a man is allowed by law to slap his wife twice a year, and he does so, and then the law is changed to allow only one slap a year, the intention of the change is to reduce the poor spouse’s abuse. It doesn’t make sense for the result to be three slaps that year.  The intent of the law - and the votes of the majority - are to reduce the number, not increase.

I am unsure. I’m leaning towards FOR, but not strongly enough to vote.

I agree with Turtlemoon, but frankly, although the wording in the last CfJ may have been contentious, the lack of a clarifying statement in the ruleset makes any interpretation suspect. I’m not quite sure where the idea that CfJ’s can’t include ruleset changes came from but this is a prime example of why it’s not correct; either way this is an issue that should be clarified explicitly, rather than hoping that it will be a one-off issue.

I agree on clarifying the issue. Also, rereading the previous arguments, I’ve made up my mind.

[turtlemoon, Josh] A closer analogy might be the replacing a law that said “a citizen may punch their spouse once a year” with “a citizen may slap their spouse once a year”. Someone who punched their spouse the day before the law changed and slapped them the day after would be acting legally.

Although, hmm, that changes a bit when the new law is explicitly a subset of the older one. But if read as changing from “punch spouse for exactly 50 hit points damage” to “exactly 20”, the action could be repeated.

“Punching spouse for X hit points damage”
I laughed really loud at this.

On topic:
“Any CfJ that specifies neither changes to the Gamestate or Ruleset nor corrections to any gamestate tracking entities may be failed by any Admin.”
I thought that CfJ always changed rules if it was not a very specific discussion.

Also because I think this falls into the turtlemoon example more than the other ones pointed by Kevan.

Turtlemoon’s example isn’t changing the action, only its frequency. If the rule here was originally “an Oligarch may reduce the Despot’s Power by 25, twice a week” and became “once a week”, legacy actions from the old rule would affect the new one, because they were both actions of “reduce the Despot’s Power by 25”.

By changing the action we change the answer to the question “has this action been taken already this week?”.

We changed the action’s POWER, an attribute of the action, just like FREQUENCY. If we would not change THE action in the latter, I can’t agree we changed it in the former either.
In other words, “reduce the Despot’s Power by” defines the action, both the amount and the frequency are just attributes.

Frequency isn’t an attribute of the action, it’s an attribute of the rule that governs whether or not the action can be performed. If we say that an action now modifies Power differently, or affects Credibility instead, or targets the Brigadier rather than the Despot, then I’d say it became a different action.