On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Sean Hunt <[email protected]> wrote: > Proposal: Domains (AI=3) > {{{ > Enact a new power-3 Rule (Domains): > entities, and any other things
Oh boy, nomics have really beaten that word to death over the years, haven't they... Nevertheless, I think "entities" is sufficient. > Two or more Rules conflict if they provide mutually exclusive ways > for governing the game, and if all those Rules are necessary for > the conflict to exist. What if rules A, B, and C all state something mutually exclusive, and furthermore claim precedence over each other in a cycle (i.e. A over B, B over C, C over A)? Then 'all those rules' are not necessary for the conflict to exist, but treating the situation as a series of pairwise conflicts doesn't really make sense, because the resolutions of those conflicts would contradict each other. > - Each precedence provision in each of the conflicted Rules by > which that Rule would claim precedence over an equally-powered > or outpowered conflicted Rule. I don't think "would" makes sense here - the rule definitely does or does not *claim* precedence; "would" makes it sound almost like a test for whether it could in any hypothetical conflict claim precedence over an equally-powered or outpowered rule. > - Each precedence provision in each of the conflicted Rules by > which that Rule would claim to defer to another conflicted Rule. ditto > Each valid precedence provision is given effect to resolve this > conflict. In case of conflict between two valid precedence > provisions in different Rules, this conflict is resolved as per > this Rule, except that this paragraph does not apply to this > conflict. A bit awkward wording - you repeat "conflict" three times. > At this point, the conflict is re-evaluated. Any further conflicts > are resolved by applying the following steps, in order, until the > conflict is resolved: Also here - "any further conflicts are resolved [...] until the conflict is resolved" sounds vaguely recursive. > 3. A Rule with an ID number takes precedence over a Rule with a > lesser ID number. lower ID number Nitpicks aside, I like this proposal. Don't know if practical conflicts are likely to ever "justify" the complexity, but of course you could say the same about the current many-tier power system. I do fear that this will result in highly ambiguous questions of what Domains apply to a particular situation. Normally I'd find this an opportunity for interesting judicial rulings, but our appeals system has been a bit dysfunctional for a while - in particular, as G. has mentioned, the questions involved in my attempted dictatorship scam and ais523's counterscam from half a year ago were AFAIK never fully resolved, presumably because the complicated and scammy Moot process got everyone too tired of the issue to call new CFJs. G., want to propose that moot fix proto of yours? ...oh, and that reminds me that the SLR ratification in one of your proposals will remove the power-1 dictatorship rule I still might have (!) - not only that, but since the SLR to be ratified was published before now, if I clean things up by attempting to use that rule to grant myself a win and repeal itself, the ratification will still attempt to undo that win, which may or may not mean anything. scshunt, if I go ahead and do that (which will require a waiting period), would you mind amending your proposal to exclude said rule from ratification, or otherwise work around the issue? Otherwise it would be logical for me to figure out how to use the dictatorship rule to block the proposal, which would probably be possible but create more mess out of a scam that should be history by now. (Was the stealth repeal intentional?)
