On 8/2/20 12:34 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
>> Counter-proposal:
>>
>> Title: Empty the escalator
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>> Author: Falsifian
>> Co-authors: Jason, omd
>> {
>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
>> are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
>> begins "An indestructible asset".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
>> are successful but have no direct effect." before the sentence that
>> begins "A fixed asset".
>>
>> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
>> }
> I withdraw the above proposal and submit a proposal as follows. (I
> removed "but have no direct effect" in two places since it seems vague
> and unnecessary.)
>
>
> Counter-proposal:
>
> Title: Empty the escalator v1.1
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: Jason, omd
> {
> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to destroy no assets
> are successful." before the sentence that begins "An indestructible asset".
>
> Amend Rule 2577 by adding the sentence "Attempts to transfer no assets
> are successful." before the sentence that begins "A fixed asset".
>
> Amend Rule 2579 by deleting the paragraph that ends with "0 or empty fee".
> }
>
>
Counter-proposal counter-argument:
Rule 2162 uses similar phrasing for switch security:
> A Rule that designates
> a switch as "secured" (at a given power level) designates changes
> to the properties of that type of switch as secured (at that power
> level) and designates changes to the value of each instance of the
> switch as secured (at that power level).
The intent of that phrasing was to only allow rules to secure switches
up to their own power level and avoid escalation to power 3 (the power
of R2162). If you're right, the above is also broken. I think it's clear
enough that both are meant to be instructions for interpretation.
This phrasing was written to circumvent the outcome of CFJ 3734, which
found that, at the time, destruction of indestructible assets was at
power 3, even if the rule designating the asset as indestructible was at
a lower power (this is now avoided because the backing document of the
entire ruleset can permit destructibility, which means normal precedence
applies).
--
Jason Cobb
