On 8/18/2022 7:50 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 8/18/2022 7:33 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Thu, 2022-08-18 at 07:26 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>>> On 8/18/2022 3:18 AM, Madrid via agora-business wrote: >>>>> I intend to ratify without objection the following: "Agora is not >>>>> ossified." >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> If such a statement is ratified when it *doesn't* match the conditions, >>>> ratifying the statement would lead to an inconsistency between the >>>> gamestate and the rules. >>> >>> I'm not convinced. Imagine a situation where making arbitrary rule >>> changes requires a process that takes between 28 and 32 days in length >>> (say we have to RWO a switch first, then go through two rounds of >>> proposals and those 27 days in total). If there's only one switch that >>> matters, I can imagine that ratifying the non-ossification of Agora >>> could flip that switch. >> >> I'm not sure I see the example clearly here (and am fairly sure that an >> indirect effect like that wouldn't work unless it was explicitly described >> in the RWO attempt to the level tabled actions need - which would be a >> different beast?) > > Just to clarify, I'm not sure I'm correct here, but: imagine a > "proposals switch" which makes it possible to turn the proposals system > on and off, with no specific rules-defined method of flipping it. Also > imagine that the security system is changed so that proposals are the > only way to amend rules. > > In this hypothetical, if the proposals switch gets turned off, then any > attempt to get rule changes made necessarily has to start with turning > it back on, so that'd be the first step in any attempt to make an > arbitrary rules change, and that step could make a process that > otherwise fits within the four-week limit take four days longer. > > A ratification of "Agora is not ossified" seems to me like, under rule > 1551, it would flip the proposals switch – it's a gamestate change that > minimally modifies the gamestate to deossify Agora, thus makes the > statement as accurate as possible.
Ah - that's plausible. On the other hand, I'm thinking that if you could ratify the ossification statement and thus flip a switch, you could also perform a direct ratification of that switch without mentioning ossification. And if so, Agora would not be ossified as long as that option was available. So trying to ratify "Agora is not ossified" would give the answer "It's already not ossified - you just have to ratify the proposal switch in question to make the rule change"? Of course there may be a way to purposefully contrive a very-weirdly secured switch to make it work, or time it so that by the time the de-ossification intent was mature, it was too late to announce a new intent for the switch itself... -G.
