There is nothing stating that a change to the attributes to a Seed is retroactive with any Crops that were planted from that Seed.  Also, the second paragraph seems suspicious even though I know what it’s trying to do.

“There is nothing stating that a change to the attributes to a Seed is retroactive with any Crops that were planted from that Seed.”

Hm, it should not? After you used a certain Seed to plant your Crop, changing the others seeds does not affect your Crop. Yes, we would need to track that, that‘s the reason why Farmers should not amend/remove such seeds.

I agree that the second paragraph isn‘t worded that nice, didn‘t know how to make it clearer.

Honestly, I would just rather the second paragraph not be in there at all.

Even though my proposal fixes retroactivity, I’m still not sure about the wording of the 2nd paragraph.

1:  “Purpose”?
2:  “Used”?
3:  If I have no pending Proposals, my next one MUST be a seed proposal.
4:  If I have a seed proposal pending, I have no proposal limit.

Just saw Hix’s post.  After a few readings of the rule, I can definitely see Hix’s 3rd point.  I can also see a way to come up with his 4th point, though that’s a stretch.

‘A Farmer may submit a Proposal if and only if this causes the Farmer to have at least one pending Seed Proposal. This Rule takes precedence of the Rule entitled “Proposals”.’

Seems clear to me.

Thank you, Hix.  I knew there was something amiss in there.  I just couldn’t pinpoint where.

Hix: Right before that sentence is the sentence, “All Farmers who have less than two Proposals pending and have not already made three Proposals that day, may submit a Proposal. ” That is not part of the rule, “Proposals”

To avoid contradiction, one could thus interpret “even if they have two Proposals pending,” as, “even though they have two Proposals pending.” I.e., that sentence might not apply if a farmer does not have two proposals pending.

aguydude: The sentence “A Farmer may submit a Proposal, even if they have two Proposals pending, if and only if this causes the Farmer to have at least one pending Seed Proposal.” can stand alone and thus can be activated at any time.

History lesson: In the 4th dynasty of Josh, this rule was added to the ruleset: “The Anarchist with the highest RIOT score on June 1st 2010 has achieved victory. If multiple Anarchists are tied for the highest RIOT score then they have all achieved victory.”  Purplebeard declared victory stating that the second sentence could be triggered at any time because there was nothing tying it to the June 1st condition.

Yoda: My point was based on an internal contradiction within the rule proposal under Hix’s interpretation, not based on any link between the two sentences.  I actually did read over a big chunk of the victory decisions when I joined, including that one.

However, the contradiction I thought I saw was not an actual contradiction, as “X => Y may submit a proposal” and “X => Y may only submit seed proposals” do not contradict one another.

CoV

Per Hix.

S/K Yeah, I failed at wording.