On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> [I pledged to post a proto. Here it is. I already had a private
> discussion with c. about it; he made some good counterarguments, I hope e
> will re-post it for a discussion to happen before the judgement is due].
Reposting, I submit all below as gratuitous arguments:
[first message]
As you predict, I believe that the Rule Change is the Rule Change--
the creation of the rule with power X, title Y, text Z. Therefore,
e.g., I could perform the same Rule Change by a (potentially entirely)
different mechanism without getting public review again.
I think the arguments in CFJ 2424 (including your own) are highly
relevant here. In particular, in that case there was an ambiguity
which of two different Rules was indirectly authorizing a Rule Change;
in this case there is an ambiguity as to whether (reduce it to two
options for argument) an authorizing Rule had Power 1 or Power 3. In
each case, the attempted Rule Change would succeed and have the same
effect no matter which way the ambiguity is resolved, but a CFJ on the
mechanism would be UNDETERMINED. In that case, it was decided that
the ambiguity matters only if it makes a substantive difference in the
outcome (e.g. it counts toward one points total or other). As you
wrote,
{
It is perfectly true that a rules amendment could *make* the actions
for rule changes that Murphy attempted into different actions (for
example with ais523's recent proposal attempt) but currently that is not
so.
}
I believe it's not in the interests of the game for the limits of the
ambiguity requirement to be themselves ambiguous. If they are
restricted to actual ambiguity in the nature of the change-- the
"specification of the rule change", not its circumstances, as I think
was intended, there is no need to judge in each case whether some
ambiguity is significant. If the ambiguity would cause the creation
of a rule with UNDETERMINED properties, it is significant and the
action fails; otherwise, it is insignificant and does not block the
action. (Contract A is not a real rule and there was no rule change
creating it; it's hypothetical, so the ambiguity restriction does not
apply to its own "creation".)
So, is there a specific modicum of significance that distinguishes
this case from CFJ 2424? If so, what is it?
[second message]
By the way, I forgot-- it's even closer to CFJ 2424 than that.
Remember, I (publicly) decided that the original scam would fail due
to R105, and instead plan to have Contract A cause Rule 2105 (or
another real Power-1 rule) to create the new rule. In this case, Rule
2105 (The Map of Agora) is the enacting agent and there is no
ambiguity as to *its* substantive aspects. Like 2424, the only issue
is as to the nature of the rule authorizing a player to cause the
enacting agent to cause a Rule Change (whew...). In that case, which
rule, in this, its power.
[G.'s reply (I hope you don't mind me posting it?)]
First, if a Contract A "causes Rule 2105 to do something" that is
*definitely* changing a substantive aspect of R2105 (the aspect of "what
R2105 does") so I don't think that works if your previous way doesn't.
I agree it's very similar to 2424. But I reason as follows:
1. In CFJ2424, we had two rules with known properties, both of which
could have inarguably done the rule change.
2. Here, we have a wholly hypothetical rule. I said previously we
know its power is between 1-4. But we don't even know that! If we're
in the bounds of a hypothetical instrument, it could (hypothetically) have
its power set in a manner that contradicts and is of higher power than
rule 2141. Once you are assuming an entity with hypothetical properties,
you could say "it could do anything" or "it's ambiguous, so it can't
do anything it's ambiguous about." That just crosses the R105 line.
It's also possible that CFJ2424, dealing with a trivial difference,
I didn't see the full ramifications, and so it should be overruled
once they become clear.
[my reply, not previously sent]
IMO 2105 isn't being altered [it's the same rule afterward, isn't
it?], just used as a "catalyst". (N.B. for anyone reading: this is
about Rule 1728's restriction that it alter entities whose existence
depends on the contract, *not* the somewhat more stringent
requirements of Power Controls Mutability, which wouldn't apply if
Contract A were a rule with any Power in [1,4] as Rule 2105 is
Power-1.)
Nor is there any reason for the power to be set out of [1,4]; the most
natural way to assume Contract A is a rule is to assume that it has a
power within the Rule-prescribed range.
But I'm repeating myself, so let's see what other players think.
--
-c.
`
