On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note: if this problem really exists in Agora, it exists in Suber's
> initial ruleset too.
To elucidate the situation: in Suber's ruleset, as well as in Agora,
there is a situation where, if irrelevant changes were inactive, the
precedence rules could be paradoxical ("a case of problematic
precedence"). In Suber's ruleset, this would occur if Rule 110 were
amended to determine the winner:
110. In a conflict between a mutable and an immutable rule, the
immutable rule takes precedence and the mutable rule shall be entirely
void.
213. ... This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining
the winner.
If, instead, a new immutable rule R999 were created to determine the
winner, R110 and R213 would conflict as to whether or not R999 takes
precedence over R213; R110 defines a mechanism for resolving that
conflict (R213 doesn't) so R213 becomes entirely void. But if R110
were amended to determine the winner, R110 and R213 would claim
precedence over each other with no nonparadoxical resolution. This is
the problem illustrated in the thesis:
http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/ProblematicPrecedenceThesis
which proposed a clause similar to the one in Rule 1482 that is
currently causing some trouble. Suber's ruleset did NOT contain such
a clause so Wooble is incorrect: the worst outcome in that ruleset is
a paradox about the winner, not proposals silently failing to take
effect. But this is Agora, and we have:
No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule
to stipulate any other means of determining precedence
between Rules of unequal Power. 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 don't know if any rules currently claim to take precedence over
higher-powered ones, but here is a particularly interesting example:
Rule 2222/0 (Power=2)
Maximum Voting Limits
Other rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity may have
greater a voting limit than as allowed by this rule.
The maximum voting limit for any entity on an ordinary decision
is 8. The maximum voting limit for any entity on any other
decision is 1.
The voting limit for entities on democratic decisions is defined by
Power=3 Rule 1950, and this rule claims and fails to take precedence
over it. However, it is not "active", so to speak, because Rule 1950
defines such voting limits as one. The more frequent case is similar
to this:
Rule 2229/1 (Power=2)
Just Resting
Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition.
While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend
Notes except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence
over any other rule.
In this case, the rule also clearly claims to take precedence over
Power=3 rules, but the rule under no circumstances in the current
ruleset would attempt to override a higher-Powered rule-- no
higher-Powered rule specifies anything about Notes. But the paradox
the problematic clause is meant to prevent would occur if Rule 1482
were amended to define a method for Note spending.
The question, therefore, is whether a claim of precedence like the
above, which does stipulate a means of determining precedence between
Rules of unequal Power; which stipulation is currently (and at the
time of the rule's enactment) entirely ineffective and useless; but
which stipulation could, through the irrelevant amendment of other
rules, come to cause a paradox, is prevented from enactment by Rule
1482.
