Previously it wasn't possible for GMs to revoke their own actions, just those of their predecessors, I think? What was the past justification for that / for including that option now?
I asked this originally (and am still hoping for an answer incidentally, Sestak, if you happen to see this) in case there was some philosophical justification for actually having the GM's word be Canon with a capital C, no-take-backsies, done and inviolable. Certainly Lumine made an excellent argument for relaxing that in the event of a completely rogue GM, I'm just interested in whether past Senators have thought otherwise and why.
I haven’t touched GM legislation too much in the past (esp not on the Senate floor, as far as I remember) so I don’t think I can be of too much help here. I don’t know if it was considered acceptable to revoke predecessor claims earlier in game history, but I do think that GM’s shouldn’t be allowed to completely tear everything up, revoke a lot of canon and rewrite much of the story history just to get to a scenario they want. This is why I have the threshold at eight-ninths; so high that it implies basically everyone agrees that the stories being revoked are lunacy that doesn’t work with everything else.
