On Jul 31, 2019, at 5:35 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
<ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> Here's a rule change that is trivially IMPOSSIBLE to enact: "Enact a
>> power 100 Rule that states: 'It is, and always has been, IMPOSSIBLE
>> to enact this rule.'"
> It's not IMPOSSIBLE to enact that in the future. (Agora /doesn't/
> regulate the state of the past, but that doesn't mean it /couldn't/.
> Besides, nothing implies that that rule would have force; we could
> redefine "Power 100" to mean "has no legal effect" or "means the
> opposite of what it says" or whatever in less than two weeks.)
Ok--how about this:
///
{
Adopt a proposal with AI and other characteristics minimally sufficient to give
full effect to its terms, providing as follows:
{ The gamestate and ruleset are changed to what they were on 31 July 2019.
Then enact a Rule of power 4 entitled "Blah" that provides: "It is and
always has been IMPOSSIBLE to adopt any proposal that purports to enact this
Rule." }
}
///
It is IMPOSSIBLE to make THAT particular rule change. The reason is because (1)
it requires reverting the gamestate to a time when the Ossification rule and
power definitions are unchanged and then (2) purports to enact a high powered
rule that retroactively makes the enactment of that very rule change
IMPOSSIBLE.
I don't see any way to maks THAT set of rule changes that isn't tautologically
IMPOSSIBLE
...
Or what about this:
///
{
Adopt a proposal with AI and other characteristics minimally sufficient to give
full effect to its terms, providing as follows:
{ The gamestate and ruleset are changed to what they were on 31 July 2019.
Then enact a Rule entitled "Foo" of power 4 that provides: "It is
IMPOSSIBLE to adopt, repeal, amend, or change any rules, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding." }
}
///
That is IMPOSSIBLE too because it re-enacts the Ossification rule (if it was
repealed) and then immediately violates it, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if the
Ossification rule were working properly.
