G. wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, com...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Geoffrey Spear <geoffsp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Instruments generally, nowhere. Proposals in particular, the first
>>> paragraph of R106:
>>>
>>> When a proposal that includes
>>> such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
>>> the gamestate.
>>
>> Huh. I'm not convinced that proposal power isn't still broken-- this
>> sentence takes precedence over Power Controls Mutability.
>
> Huh indeed. In particular, it's not the definition of "security"
> that matters, but the fact that this overrules most Rule statements
> that say Specific Quantity X is Secured.
There may be enough wiggle room in Rule 106 to avoid this breakage:
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it
from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and
its adoption index, and then it takes effect.
...
Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change;
this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified
areas of the gamestate, ...
The first excerpt must be interpreted as "unless other rules would
prevent it from taking it effect even after its power was set"
(otherwise Power Controls Mutability would prevent all rule-change
proposals due to evaluating proposals in their zero-Power state).
Now we've noticed the ambiguity, though, it should definitely be
clarified, along with a severability clause. Proto:
If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED,
then the proposal is adopted, and:
a) If other rules prevent it from taking effect for reasons
unrelated to its power, then it does not take effect.
b) Otherwise, its power is set to its adoption index (or
four, whichever is less), and it takes effect (to the
extent that other rules do not prevent it from doing so).
A proposal intended to be partly or even fully non-severable can
achieve it by saying so. Rule 106 has already been amended to
explicitly gloss over the paradox implied by "this proposal has
no effect" (contrast "the rest of this proposal has no effect"
which explicitly avoids said paradox):
... a proposal preventing itself from
taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as
applying only to the rest of the proposal).
