On 11/27/23 11:10, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > I vote FOR 9035, 9037, 9038, and 9039, these are all fun/fine. I wish I was > co-author on more of them, but that's ok. > > I vote AGAINST 9036. I do not understand how this fixes anything, nor do I > understand how it is broken. I don't feel that it is adequately explained > or apparent why this is necessary. It feels like a counterscam attempt, but > I still don't even know what the scam is. THEREFORE > I think the scam itself is getting a couple high powered crystals. > Adoption indexes are explicitly secured at power 2, they cannot change due > to a "lower powered rule" than power 2. It seems more reasonable to just > say "Adoption indexes are secured at power 3" if that is their concern, no > need to get 2 crystals for these shenanigans. >
As briefly mentioned in the comment, the concern is: Consider a referendum on an AI 3 proposal A. Also consider a Rule X, power 2: "If it is greater than 1, The AI of the referendum on proposal A is immediately set to 1." Rule X and Rule 1950 are now both attempting to continuously set the AI of the decision to different values, and this isn't a conflict per se so precedence rules don't apply. So it isn't clear what value should be used, and it might even try to revert to the default. This proposal prevents that by preventing the power 2 rule from setting it to a value such that it has to be automatically corrected. Also, I very much did not write this with getting a crystal in mind. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
