If there exists a rule 2604, then I perform the following actions: { [This
conditional is a safeguard against That One Rule becoming defined before rule
2604 passes, in the event of some Assessorial mishap]
I declare That One Rule to be rule 1030.
I award myself the patent title of “The Powerless.”
CFJ: Gaelan has the patent title “The Powerless.”
}
Arguments: {
Here’s a summary of my view on the issue. This question has been debated at
length in the thread from my original proposal, which the H. Judge may want to
take a look at.
The central issue here is described in a 1996 thesis by Andre, reproduced in
full in Appendix A. The jist is this: Generally, precedence between Agoran
rules is determined by Rule 1030, which sets out the power system we know and
tolerate. In particular, it purports to makes any attempt by a lower-powered
rule to claim precedence over a higher-powered rule INEFFECTIVE. However, what
happens if a lower-powered rule claims precedence over rule 1030? Both rules
claim precedence over the other, and there’s no inherent reason to prefer one,
other than Rule 1030 itself.
Andre proposed a solution to the issue, which remains, sans some changes in
wording, as the last paragraph of rule 1030/13: {
No change to the ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining
precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment
of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over
any Rule that would permit such a change to the ruleset.
}
I proposed what is now Rule 2604/0, which appears to circumvent that clause of
rule 1030: {
This rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the rule that Gaelan has most
recently declared, by announcement, to be That One Rule.
Additionally, this rule takes precedence over all rules other than Rule
1030,
provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding.
Gaelan CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of “The
Powerless”.
}
At the time of the rule’s passage, That One Rule was undefined, and therefore
Rule 1030 would have no reason to prevent 2604’s passage. Soon afterward,
however, came the big reveal: That One Rule is 1030! It’s been tricked! Now
that rule 2604 is in the ruleset and claiming precedence over 1030, we’ve
reached Andre’s paradox: two rules claim precedence over each other, and
there’s no neutral third-party telling us which to prefer.
It’s worth considering whether or not my declaration of That One Rule
constitutes a “change to the ruleset… by the enactment or amendment of a Rule,
or of any other form” (1030/13). I find this interpretation unlikely: Agora has
plenty of examples of gamestate that effect the functioning of the rules, but
aren’t part of the ruleset. For instance, nobody would argue that a person
registering is a change to the ruleset, even though it grants the person new
rights and obligations under the rules.
So, do I have the patent title? Rule 1030 would claim that I don’t: Rule 649/41
claims that "Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured at power 1.” Of
course, Rule 2604 claims otherwise. With no mechanism to decide between the
two, I believe this is “logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or
other irresovable logical situation” (591/46), and therefore PARADOXICAL.
It’s worth noting that in the latest edition of the Ruleset, the H. Rulekeepor
has placed rule 2604 before rule 1030. One might argue that in a natural
reading of the rules, an earlier rule would take precedence over a later one.
This isn’t a particularly strong argument, because Agoran don’t typically view
the ruleset as an ordered document, but this isn’t a typical sitauation.
}
APPENDIX A:
> A case of problematic precedence
>
> In this thesis I will present a paradox in the precedence rules for a Nomic
> game. One example of these is of course known to us all: Suppose the
> following rules would exist:
>
> 4000 The Virus is green. This rule takes precedence over rule 4010.
> 4010 The Virus is blue. This rule takes precedence over rule 4011.
> 4011 The Virus is yellow. This rule takes precedence over rule 4000.
> What colour would the Virus have? Rule 4000 takes precedence over 4010, 4010
> over 4011 and 4011 over 4000. So all have another rule of higher precedence
> conflicting with it. It's a problem that is known in real-life situations as
> well: If three vehicles come to a crossing, situations can occur in which
> each has to let one of the other two go first. This, however, is only an
> omission in the precedence rules. It could even be argued that our Rule 1030
> has already overcome it, although in my opinion it does not (although it does
> alleviate some other precedence problems).
>
> This is not the point I want to discuss here. My example is in a way more
> disturbing, because no change in the precedence rules will effectively
> correct it.
>
> Suppose a rule would be enacted, with MI=1, and the following text:
>
> Rule 9999/0
> Andre may not deregister.
> Will it have effect? Of course not. It is in conflict with Rule 113, which
> has higher precedence. New try:
> Rule 9999/1
> Andre may not deregister. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 113.
> Again Rule 9999 and Rule 113 are in conflict. Let's look at the precedence
> Rules. Rule 1482 says:
> In a conflict between Rules with different Mutability Indices,
> the Rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over
> the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. [1
> <file:///Users/gaelan/Downloads/agora_vanyel1/theses/andre-an.html#ref1>]
> So, at first sight this would be no problem: Rule 1482 specifies that Rule
> 113 still takes precedence. There is more here than meets the eye, though.
> Rule 9999 says it takes precedence over Rule 113. Rule 1482 says Rule 113
> takes precedence over Rule 9999. So, in fact there is a conflict between Rule
> 1482 and Rule 113. This Rule is of course solved by looking which of the two
> Rules takes precedence. This is Rule 1482, so in fact Rule 113 takes
> precedence over Rule 9999. However, this leads to the following, paradox
> causing Rule:
> Rule 9999/2
> Andre may not deregister. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 113 and Rule
> 1482.
> Again Rule 9999 and Rule 113 are in conflict. Rule 9999 and 1482 are in
> conflict, but this time - Who wins this conflict? Both claim to be the
> winner, and who is to arbitrate? The Rules can't tell you.
> As with so many paradoxes this paradox revolts around self-reference. In
> Nomic we already have the Paradox of Self-amendment, which in fact kind of
> started the whole game, which appears when the rule changing rules are
> changed [2
> <file:///Users/gaelan/Downloads/agora_vanyel1/theses/andre-an.html#ref2>],
> and the pardoxes that occur when a CFJ has to regulate its own legality or
> application. Here it is the precedence between precedence rules that causes
> the problem.
>
> What can we do about this? As will be clear from the preceding discussion,
> adding or changing precedence Rules will not solve the problem, and can even
> deteriorate it. Two ways are still open:
>
> Add a meta-rule (does anyone have a quasi-official set of them?) to this
> effect, for example: If two Rules regulating precedence conflict on the
> subject which of them takes precedence, then the oldest one does.
> Disallow the creation of this kind of disturbing Rules, for example by adding
> a high-MI (3 seems most logical) Rule with a text like:
> Any Rule Change which would cause a Rule with an MI lower than three that
> claims precedence over Rule 1482 is not allowed to take place, any Rule
> to the contrary notwithstanding.
> References:
> [1 <>] Agora ruleset.
> [2 <>] Peter Suber, The Paradox of Self-Amendment: A Study of Logic, Law,
> Omnipotence, and Change. Peter Lang Publishing, 1990.
Gaelan
> On Jan 19, 2020, at 7:29 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official
> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8280-8286
> =================================
>
> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals.
>
> The quorum for all below decisions was 4.
>
> All players have voting strength 3.
>
>
> PROPOSAL 8280 (Resolve the troubles v1.1)
> FOR (0):
> AGAINST (6): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Rance
> PRESENT (2): Gaelan, twg
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 0/18 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8281 (Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2)
> FOR (5): Aris, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance
> AGAINST (2): Alexis, twg
> PRESENT (1): Falsifian
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 15/6 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8282 (Let's do this the hard way v1.1)
> FOR (0):
> AGAINST (5): Alexis, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Rance
> PRESENT (3): Aris, Gaelan, twg
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 0/15 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8283 (Ex Post Ribbon)
> FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, twg
> AGAINST (0):
> PRESENT (2): Jason Cobb, Rance
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 18/0 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8284 (Line-Item Power)
> FOR (1): Alexis
> AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian, G., Jason Cobb, Rance, twg
> PRESENT (1): Gaelan
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 3/18 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8285 (Line-Item Roulette)
> FOR (1): Alexis
> AGAINST (7): Aris, Falsifian, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, twg
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 8
> AI (F/A): 3/21 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
> PROPOSAL 8286 (I Forbid Vetos!)
> FOR (3): Aris, Falsifian, twg
> AGAINST (6): Alexis, G., Gaelan, Jason Cobb, Rance, o
> PRESENT (0):
> BALLOTS: 9
> AI (F/A): 9/18 (AI=1.0)
> OUTCOME: REJECTED
>
>
> The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below:
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8281
> Title: Nothing to see here, Rule 1030 v2
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Create a power-0.1 rule titled "Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,” with the
> following text: {
> This rule takes precedence over That One Rule, provisions of That One Rule
> notwithstanding. That One Rule is defined as the rule that Gaelan has most
> recently declared, by announcement, to be That One Rule.
>
> Additionally, this rule takes precedence over all rules other than Rule 1030,
> provisions of That One Rule notwithstanding.
>
> Gaelan CAN, by announcement, award emself the patent title of “The
> Powerless”.
> }
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> ID: 8283
> Title: Ex Post Ribbon
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 2438 (Ribbons) by changing "When a proposal is adopted and
> changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red
> Ribbon." to "When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule that,
> immediately before or after the change, has Power >= 3, its proposer earns
> a Red Ribbon."
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
