On 4/11/2022 11:05 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2022-04-11 10:49, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 4/11/2022 10:40 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> No, it's not reasonable to expect new players to read through decades of >>> judgements. However, that doesn't eliminate the fact that the precedent >>> exists. Generally relevant precedents will be brought up by people aware >>> of them when needed. >> >> I mean, it *might* be reasonable for a new player to think "I'm putting in >> a high-powered proposal that claims to freeze agora, directly trying to >> loophole something that the rules explicitly say is a High Crime and >> shouldn't be done - maybe there's reasons I shouldn't do that." >> >> -G. > > It might. And there may. There are also reasons to do it -- such as to > expose such loophole.
Well sure - I respect the civil disobedience inherent in performing an action to prove what's wrong with the law, but that generally involves technically committing the crime. My point is more general - that while a new player might not be expected to *know* the cfjs surrounding a matter, it's not unreasonable for em to expect that tinkering around the edges of a crime might get em nabbed, even if the nabbing is on a technicality. > In any case, my action was to create a proposal > (with a very high AI), which by definition can only be implemented with > much support. I'd say it was nearly impossible for that action to ossify > the game. One thing that surprised me is that, so far, nobody's really said "it can NEVER be an attempt at ossification because I can read right in the rules that ossification would be blocked". In other words, we already *know* it's impossible unless the attempt would explicitly removes R1698 first, and that sort of impossibility hasn't been a defense. It would be interesting to see if that comes up more in your new cfjs. -G.
