User blog:Nichdel/Nommitia Sanity Part 2

Amend "Rule Interpretation" to be titled "Pragmatonic" and read:
If it is found that a shall-statement was not correctly followed within the last two rounds, all results of not following the shall statement are treated as not occuring. If it is found that a shall-statement was not followed more than two rounds ago, it shall be treated as a must-statement would be.

If it is found that a must-statement was not correctly followed, the results shall be treated as occuring and the player(s) that the must-statement applied to are punishable.

Actions described by may-statements are legal game actions.

Players must interpret all other statements by their intented and intuitive meanings.

Amend "Players and Subtypes of Players" to read:
A Player Subtype is a specific set of players that a specific set of statements describe and apply to. Statements describing player subtypes have higher precedence than statements describing players in general, except for those in rule 101.

Players may propose rule changes and cast votes in legally described ways.

This introduces clear instructions for when to 'reset' the game and when to 'fix' the game if something has gone wrong. The tendency towards pragmatism ensures stability, at the cost of allowing scams contingent on no one noticing. The must-statements also lay the groundwork for a punishment system. A later proposal may define punishment, which could perhaps take away ill-earned rewards.