On 1/16/20 9:39 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:38, AIS523--- via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2020-01-16 at 15:05 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> Now here we are a third time. Whatever we can say about CFJ 3694, >>> the judgement is suitably unintuitive such that almost no one reading >>> the rules without this precedent/context thinks that zombie auctions >>> actually work... >> This strikes me as an almost identical situation to a rule stating that >> a player CAN perform a given action, but not specifying a mechanism to >> do so. I'm not up to date with our existing precedents on that, >> though. >> >> I'm reminded of the concept of ω-inconsistency in logic: a system is >> ω-inconsistent if it holds a statement of the form "some integer has >> property X" to be true, but also holds statements of the form "N does >> not have propety X" to be true for every specific integer N. A rule >> stating that something is possible without specifying a mechanism to >> perform it seems to introduce an ω-inconsistency into Agora.] >> > The logical fix, perhaps, is to make announcement the default mode of > action, including perhaps allowing anyone to cause a non-person to do > something it is required to do, by announcement . > > -Alexis
I think I remember hearing that the concept of regulated actions was created because a judge ruled the other way - the Rules say that someone "CAN" do it (even if not providing a method), so who are we to say that that person can't do it? It's very possible I'm misremembering this, but if I'm not, I'm certain someone else can describe it better than I can. -- Jason Cobb
