On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 8:39 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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. > I am not sure how this "isn't a conflict per se"? It seems to be a conflict: both rules are doing opposing things, thus they are in conflict. Secondly, if the AI is indeterminate, that would prevent arbitrary proposals from being passed, and thus ossify Agora, so the power 2 rule would be repealed per the anti-ossification rule. > Also, I very much did not write this with getting a crystal in mind. > I guess I'm inclined to believe this, but it doesn't make me inclined to change my vote. I think this rule could maybe be simplified more, not less, and this is the opposite direction than it should go: I think maybe just securing adoption indices at power 3 is more appropriate of a fix for the issue indicated. Additionally, power 2 rules such as the example given would be the result of a scam of some sort: if the scammer is stepping on landmines such as these mayhaps we should leave them in to STOP the scammer via confusion and the anti-ossification rule? Or at the very least, we should be relying on higher-power rules more, such as the anti-ossification rule, so that power accurately reflects mutability as in the original suber ruleset? Additionally... at power=2, a simpler thing would be to modify voting strengths, or RAISE adoption indices, not lower them, so I find it unlikely any scammer would actually use this... However, I hope this discussion helps others make a proper decision! -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
